Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_by_signatureA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it's a 'shortcut' and equivalent to a search operation, providing minor behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

  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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and example, then clarify the relationship to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.

  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), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and equivalence to search, but does not describe the return format or output. Since the sibling search likely has a known output, this is a minor gap.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described 'signature' parameter. The description adds that this parameter is used as the phrase in a search equivalent, but this does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 searches for interpretations (interpretacji KIS) by signature, with an example. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' by being a shortcut equivalent to searching with the phrase equal to the signature, making the specific resource and verb clear.

  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 relates to sibling 'search' by saying it's equivalent to 'search with phrase = signature', providing clear context for when to use this tool (when you have a signature). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_interpretation' or 'suggest'.

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

• suggestA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds EUREKI source and autocomplete purpose, but no major behavioral detail beyond annotations.

  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?

  Single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description adequately explains its purpose and usage context without requiring additional detail.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'phrase' having a description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides ('partial phrase' vs 'Partial phrase, e.g., ulga na').

  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 it provides phrase suggestions (autocomplete) from EUREKI for partial queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search which is the actual 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?

  Implies usage before actual search to refine keywords, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative conditions. Contextually clear given sibling tools.

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

• get_interpretationA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns first 4000 characters of content and lists specific metadata fields. No contradictions.

  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, front-loaded with the verb 'Pobiera' (Fetches), and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  No output schema, but the description adequately explains what is returned (metadata fields and first 4000 characters of content). It is sufficient for a fetch operation, though error handling is not mentioned.

  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 100%, so the description adds value by providing a concrete example ('694514') and linking the parameter to search results, clarifying its origin 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 the tool's purpose: retrieving a full individual interpretation by ID from search results, returning metadata and content. It distinguishes itself from siblings (search, search_by_signature, suggest) by specifying the ID-based retrieval from search results.

  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 indicates usage after obtaining an ID from the 'search' tool, providing context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

• searchA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: searches in thesis and metadata by default, returns list with specific fields, and mentions the system source. No contradictions with annotations.

  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 (two sentences) with clear structure. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, default behavior, and next step for full text. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  No output schema, but the description explains return fields (signature, organ, date, thesis). It covers the main functionality and links to sibling tools. Pagination parameters are not elaborated, but schema descriptions cover them. Overall complete for a search 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?

  All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining default behaviors (searchInContent, fullPhrase) and brief usage context, elevating the score.

  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 searches Polish individual interpretations in the EUREKA system, specifies the content type (tax topics), and differentiates itself from sibling tools by mentioning get_interpretation for full text and other search types like search_by_signature and suggest.

  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 guidance on default search scope (thesis and metadata) and when to use searchInContent=true for full text. It also references get_interpretation for retrieving full content. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide exhaustive alternatives.

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