Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_temperatureA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms the operation but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., edge cases or return format), which is acceptable given the simplicity and annotation coverage.

  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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and all necessary details. No wasted words or redundant 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 simple, self-contained conversion tool with a complete schema and output schema available, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters, including enums for from_unit and to_unit. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 'Convert' and clearly identifies the resource (temperature) and the units involved (celsius, fahrenheit, kelvin). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_text and fetch_url_metadata.

  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 clearly indicates this tool is for temperature conversions, providing clear context for when to use it. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling tools are unrelated.

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

• analyze_textA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the computed outputs (word, character, sentence counts, reading time), which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate results. It does not introduce any undisclosed side effects or 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and outputs. It contains no fluff or repetition, earning the maximum score for conciseness and structure.

  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, high schema coverage), the existence of an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description fully equips the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No additional context is needed.

  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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'text', which includes the meaning and a non-empty constraint. The description does not add further parameter details, but the schema fully captures the semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' and lists exact resources (word, character, and sentence counts, plus estimated reading time), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fetch_url_metadata and convert_temperature, which cover unrelated domains.

  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 conveys clear context: this tool is for computing text analytics metrics. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated and the purpose is self-evident, so the guidance is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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

• fetch_url_metadataA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail beyond that: it explicitly states that HTTP error status codes do not raise exceptions, while transport-level failures do. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior that informs the agent's 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 two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately, and the second paragraph explains error-handling behavior without any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  This is a simple tool with only two well-documented parameters and an output schema. The description covers the main purpose and the critical edge case of HTTP error handling, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (URL and timeout_seconds), and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 opens with 'Fetch a URL and report its status code, content type/length, and response time,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like analyze_text and convert_temperature, which serve entirely different purposes.

  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 (checking URL metadata) and explains behavior on HTTP errors versus transport failures, effectively setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, falling just short of a 5.

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