Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_district_schoolsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the parameter format (7-digit NCES LEA ID) but lacks details on pagination, response format, error behavior, or school type scope (e.g., public vs all). This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

  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 and front-loaded: the purpose is stated immediately, followed by a concise parameter explanation. No filler or redundancy.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  This is a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., list of school objects) or whether pagination applies. Given the low complexity, a 3 is appropriate.

  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 only defines nces_id as a string with no description, but the tool description adds crucial meaning: '7-digit NCES LEA ID of the district'. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and fully explains the required parameter.

  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 'List all schools in a district' with a specific verb (List) and resource (schools). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_school (single school) and find_schools_near_address (location-based).

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage when you have a district NCES ID and want its schools, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. No exclusions are stated, so the context is clear but not fully guiding.

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

• search_districtsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the action 'search' and partial name matching. It fails to state the return format or any limitations, leaving significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

  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 extremely concise: a single purposeful sentence followed by a compact, well-structured Args block. No filler or redundant information.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters, but it omits the return value description and edge-case behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a clear gap.

  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 schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining 'name' as full or partial with examples and 'state' as a two-letter code with an example. This adds complete meaning beyond the 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 'Search for school districts by name, optionally filtered by state', identifying a specific action (search) and resource (school districts). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like lookup_district_by_address by focusing on name-based search.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage context through the phrase 'by name', contrasting with address-based siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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

• get_districtA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns a 'full profile', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or authentication needs. This is a modest gap for a simple getter.

  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?

  Extremely concise with a clear structure: one purpose sentence and an Args block. Every word earns its place.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  The tool is simple and input is well-documented, but the output 'full profile' is undefined and there is no output schema. This leaves ambiguity about what data will be returned, so the description is not fully complete.

  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 description adds significant value beyond the schema by specifying the format (7-digit) and providing an example ('4807380'). This is essential for correct invocation, especially with 0% schema coverage.

  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?

  Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('school district') with an identifier (NCES LEA ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lookup_district_by_address or search_districts.

  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?

  Provides clear context: use when you have the NCES LEA ID. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, so it loses a point for lack of exclusion guidance.

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

• get_schoolA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'Get' indicating a read operation, but does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, return format, or any side effects. It is adequate but not rich for a simple getter.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by an argument description. Zero waste and easy to parse.

  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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is relatively complete. It states the input format and what the tool does. However, it does not describe the return shape or error handling, which could be important but is not critical for such a simple tool.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by specifying the nces_id as a 12-digit NCES school ID, adding format validation beyond the schema's generic string type. It does not explain how to obtain the ID, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool gets the full profile for a school using its NCES school ID. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on districts, search, or address-based lookups.

  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 implies the tool is for use when you already have a specific NCES school ID, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for a simple lookup tool.

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

• lookup_district_by_addressA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (district name, NCES ID, enrollment, etc.) which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid or unmatched addresses, or if it returns a single result. The verb 'Find' implies a lookup but is not explicit about side effects or edge cases.

  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 one-sentence purpose, a concise list of return fields, and an Args section with a clear example. Every sentence earns its place without wordiness. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it states what it does, what input it needs, and what it returns. The only missing contextual element is failure behavior (e.g., what if the address is not found or is invalid). This does not severely impair usability but leaves a minor 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 input schema only provides the parameter name 'address' with type string and zero schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining 'address: Full US street address' and providing an example ("1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Austin, TX"). This adds clear semantics and format guidance beyond the schema, though it could specify constraints like whether ZIP alone is accepted.

  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 tool's function: 'Find the public school district serving a US street address.' This uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('public school district') with a clear scoping condition ('US street address'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_district (likely by ID), search_districts (by name), and find_schools_near_address (address-to-schools).

  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 implies the correct usage: when you have a full US street address and need the district. It clearly states the input requirement ('Full US street address') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. The context is clear, though no exclusions are given, so it fits 'clear context, no exclusions' at a 4.

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

• find_schools_near_addressA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it searches only public schools, within a radius in miles, with a maximum radius of 25.0, and requires a full US street address. These constraints go beyond what the schema provides. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably 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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence summary, followed by a clean Arg list. Every sentence/line earns its place by providing necessary information. There is no redundancy or fluff.

  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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics. It does not explain the shape of the response (e.g., a list of schools with details) or handle edge cases like invalid addresses or no results, but these are not critical for basic tool selection/invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to call 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?

  The input schema provides almost no description coverage (0%), only type and default values. The description compensates by defining each parameter: 'address' is a 'Full US street address', and 'radius_miles' is 'Search radius in miles (default 5.0, max 25.0)'. This adds crucial semantics and constraints (e.g., max 25.0) that the schema does not convey.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Find public schools within a radius of a US street address.' This uses a specific verb ('find'), a specific resource ('public schools'), and a specific scope ('within a radius' and 'US street address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on districts rather than address-based proximity search.

  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 when to use the tool: when you have a US street address and need to find nearby public schools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of providing full usage guidelines. The sibling tool names imply district-based alternatives, but no direct comparison is made.

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