Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_state_lien_guidesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the tool 'returns' data and lists the returned fields, which implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not disclose possible response size, pagination, ordering, or access constraints, though these are less critical for a simple no-parameter list 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?

  Two short sentences with the core action and return fields front-loaded. The purpose statement adds value without unnecessary detail, making the description both concise and structured well.

  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 no-argument listing tool, the description explains what is returned and why to call it, which is sufficient for basic selection. It could briefly describe the output structure or clarify the difference from list_supported_states, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

  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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema clearly documents that, so there is no parameter detail the description needs to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not conflict with the schema.

  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 returns every available state guide and names the exact fields returned (code, title, slug). It differentiates itself from get_state_lien_guide by framing itself as the pre-fetch discovery step, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_supported_states.

  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 says it is useful for discovering what exists before fetching one, which guides the agent to use this before get_state_lien_guide. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to list_supported_states, but the discovery context is clear.

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

• calculate_lien_deadlineA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses what the tool returns (dates, days remaining, warnings) and boundaries (all states, not legal advice). It doesn't fully detail output format or edge-case behavior, but the main behavioral contract is clear.

  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?

  Four short sentences, each earning its place: function, requirements, return value, and coverage/disclaimer. Front-loaded with the core calculation before details.

  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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, required inputs, outputs, and scope, while the schema covers optional parameters. Minor gaps remain around exact output formatting and error handling, but these are not critical given schema coverage.

  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 schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds only that invoice_date can be a delivery date, which the schema already states, so it doesn't materially increase semantic clarity.

  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?

  States a specific verb and resource: calculates preliminary notice and lien filing deadlines for US construction invoices. It also distinguishes itself from sibling guide/list tools by describing a computation rather than a reference lookup.

  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 invocation criteria: needs invoice/delivery date and state, and covers all 50 states plus DC. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.

• get_state_lien_guideA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly states what the tool returns, including specific content categories. It does not discuss side effects or authorization, but 'Returns' indicates a read-only lookup and the level of detail is sufficient for this 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 clean sentences, no fluff, with the return content front-loaded and usage guidance follow-up. 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?

  For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates what the return value contains and gives enough routing guidance to invoke the correct tool. The schema handles the parameter requirement and sibling tools cover the surrounding 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 already fully documents the single 'state' parameter with the two-letter US state code constraint, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond 'for a state,' 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 states a concrete action ('Returns the underlying deadline rules for a state') and enumerates the contents: statute citations, deadline table, and common questions. It also distinguishes itself from date-only tools by saying 'rather than just a date,' and the singular 'for a state' separates it from list_state_lien_guides.

  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 explicit usage context: use it when the user asks why a deadline falls where it does or wants the statute. It also implies the alternative is a date-only tool, but it does not name calculate_lien_deadline or list_state_lien_guides directly.

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

• list_supported_statesA
  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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Returns...') and fully defines the scope ('all 50 states plus DC'), leaving no ambiguity about what data will be returned. It does not discuss output format or edge cases, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool this is sufficient.

  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 with no filler. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, and the usage hint is placed at the end. Every sentence adds useful 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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the exact set of jurisdictions covered, and when to use it. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke this correctly.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already covers 100% of its (empty) parameter surface. The description does not need to add parameter detail. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and the description focuses on the return value instead.

  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 a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('two-letter codes of every US jurisdiction with deadline rules available'), and precise scope ('all 50 states plus DC'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_lien_deadline and get_state_lien_guide, which clearly serve different functions.

  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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to check a code before calculating.' This provides clear usage context tied to the calculation workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are different enough that no confusion remains.

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