Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pingA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool works 'without calling the API' and reveals the diagnostic purpose around API key configuration, which goes beyond mere name repetition and clarifies that this is a non-mutating health check.

  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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers actionable usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter diagnostic ping, the description is sufficient: it states what the tool does, when to use it, and a key behavioral trait (no API call). It does not describe the exact result contents, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is not a significant gap.

  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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is complete by being empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not introduce any confusion about inputs.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report server health and configuration status.' It also distinguishes itself from the document/docket siblings by noting it works 'without calling the API' and by focusing on API key configuration, which is clearly unrelated to searching or retrieving dockets.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this first if other tools fail' and explains why: it detects the most common failure cause, missing API key configuration. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use scenario or name a specific alternative tool.

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

• get_docketA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by listing the exact return fields and stating that a non-existent ID raises a not-found error. It omits minor details like authentication or rate limits, but for a single-fetch tool this is adequately transparent.

  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 well structured: a front-loaded purpose sentence, a concise list of return fields and error behavior, then the single argument with an example. There is no filler and every sentence contributes actionable information.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the error case, where to get valid IDs, and what the argument should look like. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The input schema provides only the parameter name with no description, so the description must compensate entirely. It does: it defines docket_id as an exact ID, gives a concrete example ('BIS-2024-0047'), and tells the agent to obtain IDs from search_dockets rather than guessing. This is exemplary parameter guidance.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('one docket's full detail'), and a source ('Regulations.gov'). It also distinguishes itself from search_dockets by requiring an exact ID and explicitly points to that sibling for finding IDs, making the tool's role unambiguous.

  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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when you have an exact docket ID and need full detail, and it explicitly tells the agent to get IDs from search_dockets rather than guessing. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer list_documents, so it misses a full when-not comparison.

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

• list_documentsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does this well by disclosing the returned fields, the non-error empty-list behavior, and API page/page_size limits. It does not address authentication, rate limits, or side effects explicitly, although 'List' implies read-only operation.

  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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact field list and a two-part Args section. Every sentence conveys necessary information; there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a simple list endpoint with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete: it defines inputs and constraints, states the return summary shape, and clarifies an important edge case. An agent can select and invoke the tool without needing additional context.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It does: docket_id is 'Exact docket ID' with an example, page is limited to 1-20, and page_size is limited to 5-250. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List the documents filed in one Regulations.gov docket.' It names the exact scope (one docket) and enumerates the returned document-summary fields, which clearly separates this from siblings such as search_dockets and get_docket.

  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 gives clear context for use: when you already have an exact docket_id and need the list of documents within that docket. It also provides the expected empty-list behavior for unmatched IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_dockets or get_docket, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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

• search_docketsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a solid job: it discloses exact returned fields, explains match_context as a plain-text snippet, and exposes pagination limits plus API behavior. It does not discuss auth or error behavior, which is a minor omission for a search operation.

  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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return semantics, downstream usage, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Even with no output schema, the description explains the return values, field meanings, and includes usage examples. Given four parameters and no annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the Args section fully compensates by defining every parameter, including valid ranges for page and page_size, an example query, and example agency filters. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

  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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Full-text search'), a specific resource ('federal rulemaking dockets on Regulations.gov'), and the response shape. It also orients the tool relative to siblings by noting the returned id feeds get_docket and list_documents.

  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 gives clear downstream routing ('Use the returned id with get_docket for the abstract or list_documents for its documents') and practical search advice ('narrow the query instead of paging deeper'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the context is strong.

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