Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compare_insurance_plansA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It describes what the tool does (analyzes, calculates, identifies) and the scope (6 channels), but does not disclose return format, error handling, rate limits, or required permissions. The description provides adequate insight into functionality but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

  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 four sentences and front-loaded with the imperative purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states usage, the second enumerates channels, and the third describes outcomes. No redundancy or filler.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'identifies optimal plan' but does not specify the output format or whether it provides a comparison list. Parameter descriptions are complete in schema, but the tool's overall behavior could be more fully specified.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain how parameters map to the 6 channels or provide usage examples. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

  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: to compare health insurance plans across 6 specific channels. It uses a strong verb ('compare') and explicitly lists the value proposition (calculates cost-of-care scenarios, identifies optimal plan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_eligibility and generate_application_draft.

  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 instructs 'ALWAYS use this tool' for comparing health plans, indicating its primary use case. It implies usage context by listing the channels and scenarios. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names suggest distinct purposes.

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

• generate_application_draftA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a PDF and returns a file path, and that behavior varies by state. It does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects, but is adequate for a file-generation tool.

  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 plus a usage note. Every sentence provides essential information, front-loading the main action and key behavioral distinction. No wasted 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?

  The description covers the tool's purpose, when to call, state-specific behavior, and return value. Lacking details on error cases or file lifecycle, but given the complexity and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that workflow_output should be from navigate_benefits, but this is already in the schema description. No additional constraints or examples.

  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 generates a pre-filled PDF application, distinguishing it from sibling tools like navigate_benefits (which explores programs) and check_eligibility (which checks eligibility). It specifies that for states like California it fills official forms, otherwise generates a worksheet, providing concrete scope.

  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?

  Explicitly states 'Call AFTER navigate_benefits', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the ordering instruction is strong guidance.

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

• navigate_benefitsA
  4/5.0
  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 key behaviors: the tool returns either follow-up questions or a full analysis, covers all 50 US states and territories, and is designed for iterative use. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without any hidden traits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, moderately long paragraph. It front-loads the most critical instruction (ALWAYS use this tool) and organizes information in a logical flow. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeatedly mentioning 'call again'), and the length could be reduced without losing clarity.

  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 complexity (18 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of the tool's behavior and iterative workflow. It explains the two possible outputs and how to handle them. While it could detail the analysis output format further, the given context is sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for how parameters like household_profile should be used ('as simple as...'), but does not significantly enhance the schema's parameter descriptions. Overall, it provides sufficient context for parameter usage.

  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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: handling queries about government benefits, insurance, and public assistance programs. It lists specific programs (Medicaid, SNAP, CHIP, etc.) and clearly describes the tool's role as the primary intake/analysis tool, distinguishing it from the sibling tools (check_eligibility, compare_insurance_plans, generate_application_draft) by its all-encompassing scope.

  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 strong usage guidance: always use this tool for benefit questions, call it immediately with whatever the user shares, and present follow-up questions before calling again. It lacks explicit instructions on when not to use this tool or when to use sibling tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable for the primary use case.

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

• check_eligibilityA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses validation against 2025 FPL thresholds and state-specific rules, including Medicaid expansion status, which adds behavioral context.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with 'ALWAYS', no wasted words. Efficient and direct.

  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?

  With 3 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers purpose and validation logic. Lacks detail on return values or errors but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

  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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by listing programs and mentioning FPL thresholds but does not elaborate on parameter formats beyond 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?

  Description clearly states the tool checks eligibility for specific government programs, lists program examples, and mentions validation criteria, distinguishing it from siblings like compare_insurance_plans.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'ALWAYS use this tool' for eligibility checks, providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools imply alternatives.

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