Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_articleB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'retrieve' without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling for missing articles.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it may be too brief for a tool with four parameters, missing important details about parameter dependencies.

  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?

  For a tool with four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits crucial context: it does not mention that the 'article' parameter is required, nor does it explain what the return value contains or how errors are handled.

  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's mention of 'by law ID or law number' adds minimal value beyond the existing schema descriptions, which already specify parameter purposes and constraints.

  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 action (retrieve), resource (a specific article from e-Gov Law Search), and method (by law ID or law number). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_law and search_laws by targeting articles specifically.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage context (retrieving a specific article) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives among sibling tools.

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

• search_lawsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'current' laws, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. The bare statement is insufficient 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?

  A single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the action and resource, perfect for quick comprehension.

  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?

  With no output schema and only three parameters, the description fails to explain return format, pagination, or result structure. Given the tool's complexity (search across categories), completeness is lacking.

  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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The search logic (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity) is not explained, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 verb 'search', the resource 'current Japanese laws', and the source 'e-Gov Law Search by keyword', distinguishing it from siblings like find_related_laws and get_article which target specific relations or articles.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies general keyword search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

• get_lawA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description implies a read operation but doesn't explicitly confirm idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only states what is retrieved, which is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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, clear, no unnecessary words. Front-loads the key action and resource.

  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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief but covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks details about return format or side effects, which could be useful for a tool with no output schema.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'metdata and preview' is generic). 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?

  Description clearly states it retrieves law metadata and plain text preview from e-Gov. It specifies the source and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_laws (search) and get_article (specific article).

  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 siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., need a law ID from search_laws). The description is silent on usage context.

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

• find_related_lawsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, or other behavioral traits like rate limits. Only the broad result type is mentioned.

  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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. No unnecessary 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?

  For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what results contain (enforcement orders and regulations). However, it could be slightly more complete by noting output structure or limitations.

  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?

  Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (lawName with example, limit with default). The description adds context about result content but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding related laws given a base law name. It specifies what is included (enforcement orders and regulations) and is distinct from sibling tools like search_laws, get_law, and get_article.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is implied but not explicitly differentiated from alternatives.

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