Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_eventsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains key behavioral traits: the temporal search range constraint ('current year +/- 1 year'), the rationale for this limitation ('text search on infinite recurrence is impossible without a range'), and the search scope ('summary or description'). This provides valuable operational context beyond basic functionality.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, important behavioral note, parameter explanation, and return value description. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections enhances readability.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with temporal constraints), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good coverage. It explains the search behavior, temporal limitations, parameter meaning, and return format. The output schema handles return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than output structure.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear explanation of the single parameter: 'query: The text to search for.' This adds essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks. The description also implies the parameter is required (matches the schema's required field).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for events matching a text query in summary or description.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (events), and scope (summary/description fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_events' tool, which would be needed for a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context about when to use this tool: for text-based searches within event summaries/descriptions. The note about searching 'a wide range (current year +/- 1 year)' gives important temporal context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'list_events' tool or provide exclusion criteria.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• list_eventsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation (list) and specifies date range filtering and recurring event expansion. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for an agent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly structured and concise - purpose statement first, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated immediately.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (date range filtering with recurring event expansion) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good coverage. It explains what the tool does, documents parameters, and mentions the return type. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing format examples (ISO format) and clarifying the purpose of both parameters. The Args section explicitly documents both required parameters with format guidance, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('calendar events'), specifies the scope ('within a specific date range'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_events' by mentioning the expansion of recurring events. This provides specific differentiation from alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('within a specific date range, expanding recurring events'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide detailed alternatives. The existence of 'search_events' as a sibling tool is noted but not explained, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.