Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_date_of_birth_detailC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention that it is likely read-only, what data it relies on (date of birth and gender), or what the output looks like beyond the schema. The description adds little transparency.

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

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place by conveying enough information. It is not concise in a useful way; it is simply minimal and vague.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given that the tool has three parameters, an output schema, and related sibling tools, the description lacks context on what 'detail' means, when to prefer this tool, and what the output represents. It is barely adequate for a basic understanding.

  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 documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add extra meaning about how format or gender affect the result, but it does not need to compensate significantly given the schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the action ('get') and the resource ('date of birth'), but 'the detail' is vague and does not specify what details are returned or how it differs from sibling fortune tools. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_daily_fortune, get_general_fortune). The description does not mention any alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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

• get_daily_fortuneB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the operation and inputs. It does not explain whether the fortune is random, how errors are handled, or any side effects, representing a significant transparency gap.

  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, clear sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

  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 input schema is complete and an output schema exists, so the description is largely sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, which are captured in other dimensions, making it adequate but not excellent.

  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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and format. The description merely restates the parameters without adding any extra meaning, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage.

  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: to get a daily fortune using date of birth and forecast day. It uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_general_fortune or get_date_of_birth_detail.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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

• get_general_fortuneA
  3.6/5.0
  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. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and adds the 'for everyone' scope, but it does not disclose any limitations, potential side effects, or output format nuances beyond what the schema already captures. This is adequate for a simple, non-destructive get tool but lacks depth.

  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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, making it easy to parse, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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 is simple (two optional params, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It captures the core purpose and scope, and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools and any note about when to use it over those, which would make it fully 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%, with both parameters (format and forecast_day) fully described in the schema. The description merely reinforces the forecast_day parameter ('based on the forecast day') without adding syntax or behavior details, so it adds no meaningful value over 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('general fortune') and clarifies scope ('for everyone'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools likely focused on individual or date-of-birth-specific fortunes. This is a clear, non-ambiguous purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its role relative to the sibling tools.

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