Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_stationsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states it lists stations. No mention of read-only nature, data freshness, or any side effects. Lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious.

  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?

  Three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose statement, route context, and usage guidance. No extraneous text.

  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 zero-parameter list tool without output schema, description is adequate. Explains what is returned and how to use it. Missing output format details, but not critical.

  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?

  No parameters, but description adds value by explaining output (station names, ids) and providing route context. Baseline 4 due to zero params.

  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 lists HHR stations and their ids, and differentiates from sibling tools like list_intercity_stations by specifying the HHR line. The route details add specificity.

  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 to use names/ids with search_trains, providing a clear use case. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools imply different scopes.

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

• list_intercity_stationsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Simple read operation with no side effects; description covers the output (stations and codes). No annotations to contradict, but no disclosure of potential limitations or authentication needs, though minimal for this 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?

  Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with verb and core resource. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool does: listing intercity stations and their codes. Complete and sufficient.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so description adds no param info; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter meaning is needed.

  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 verb 'list' and the resource 'SAR intercity stations' with specific lines (East + North), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'list_stations'.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_stations for non-intercity stations). The description does not provide explicit usage context.

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

• search_trainsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. It does mention a limitation (no fares), but overall behavioral detail is minimal.

  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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description details the return value (list of trains with departure/arrival datetimes, duration, stops, intermediate stations) and notes the absence of fares. This covers the essential information for an 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.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: from_station (with resolution rules), to_station (with example), and date (with format example). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/title.

  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: 'Search Haramain (HHR) train schedules between two stations on a date.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('HHR train schedules'), and the mention of 'Haramain' distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_intercity' and 'list_stations'.

  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 operational details, such as how station names are resolved (e.g., 'Jeddah' vs 'Jeddah Airport'), and notes that fares are not included. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, the specificity of the domain implies its appropriate context.

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

• search_intercityA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description discloses return contents (times, duration, stops, fares), rendering method (headless browser, ~5-10s latency), and behavior for empty lists. No mention of auth or rate limits, but acceptable for a search 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 well-structured paragraphs. First paragraph states purpose and scope, second lists parameters and return values. No redundant sentences; each sentence adds value.

  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?

  No output schema, but description explains return fields (departure/arrival time, duration, stops, Economy + Business fares in SAR) and edge cases like empty list meaning. 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?

  Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds examples and format for each parameter: 'Origin name or code (e.g. "Riyadh", "RYD", "Dammam")' and 'ISO format YYYY-MM-DD'. This compensates well.

  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 'Search SAR intercity trains (East + North lines) WITH fares on a date.' It specifies the exact routes covered and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_trains' which is for the Haramain line.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly says 'Use this instead of search_trains for any route NOT on the Makkah-Madinah Haramain line.' Also explains when to expect empty results (e.g., North line currently no bookable service).

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