Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-funding-optionsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds context about the type of data returned ('program names, descriptions, eligibility criteria, and application details'), which is useful but doesn't provide rich behavioral details like rate limits or error handling.

  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: three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, usage, and result details without redundancy. Each sentence adds clear value, making it front-loaded 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (read-only search with two parameters), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description explains purpose, usage, and result content. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail on return format or pagination, though it's largely complete for its context.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema fully documents the two parameters (limit and page) with types and constraints, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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: 'Retrieve available funding opportunities with detailed information including name and description.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('funding opportunities'), and scope ('detailed information'), though it doesn't differentiate from siblings as none exist.

  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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool when users need to explore available grants, funds, or financing opportunities.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, but since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions.

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