Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_guidesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by noting it 'Returns metadata only', clarifying the content shape. However, it doesn't disclose whether includePillar alters return structure, pagination, or ordering. Bar is lower due to annotations; the metadata-only note adds modest context.

  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?

  A single, dense sentence that names all five filters and the metadata-only return. Efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor deduction for the trailing 'Returns metadata only' clause being behaviorally useful but slightly tangential to conciseness.

  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?

  Complexity is moderate (6 optional params, no required). No output schema exists, so the 'Returns metadata only' clarification helps. With read-only annotations and mostly-documented params, this is largely complete for a listing tool, though includePillar's meaning and search_guides differentiation would round it out.

  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 67%, so most parameters already have descriptive examples in the schema (jurisdiction, buyingStage, era, propertyType). The description lists the filter dimensions, mirroring but not exceeding the schema. The includePillar parameter is undocumented in the schema and the description gives no meaning for it, leaving a 1-parameter gap. Baseline 3 is correct given high 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?

  Specific verb+resource ('List...guide catalogue') clearly states what the tool does. The listed filter dimensions are explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling 'search_guides' — both appear to return guide lists, so without an explicit differentiator the purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is missing.

  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 states optional filtering by five dimensions, implying usage when a filtered catalogue is needed. But it does not clarify when to use list_guides vs search_guides vs get_guide, nor state any exclusions. No alternatives are named, so usage context is present but not differentiated.

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

• build_buyer_checklistA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying 'deterministic' (reproducible output) and 'sourced' (grounded in guide corpus), and explicitly states it does not analyse a listing or building, which sets correct expectations about the tool's non-analytic nature. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

  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 compact - two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('deterministic, sourced checklist') and then add a clarifying disclaimer about scope. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

  The tool has 6 non-required params, no enums, and no output schema, making the description an important source of behavioral guidance. The description explains what the tool does at a high level but doesn't address how the parameters shape the output, what the return format is, or token/result expectations. It's adequate but leaves gaps for a parameter-rich, schema-poor tool.

  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 67% (4 of 6 params have descriptions). The description itself adds 'deterministic' and 'sourced' framing that clarifies the checklist is derived from guides rather than being free-form, but it doesn't elaborate on parameter interplay (e.g., how concerns, buyingStage, jurisdiction, or propertyType combine). With moderately good schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Build') with a clear resource ('deterministic, sourced checklist from the Homechecker guide corpus') and context ('buyer context'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'assembles general questions and checks' and does not analyse a listing, document or actual building, which separates it from search/retrieval siblings like list_guides and get_guide.

  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: it's for building a general checklist from the guide corpus, and clarifies it does NOT analyse a listing/document/building. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or give explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance beyond the negative statement about what it doesn't do. There's no comparison against list_guides or get_guide as alternatives.

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

• get_guideA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the return-value context (source links, review metadata, method, limitations) which is useful. It doesn't address potential behaviors like slug-not-found errors, but with strong annotations, the added context meets baseline expectations.

  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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose, immediately followed by the most critical usage hint (use a slug from sibling tools). It's efficient with no filler, though it could arguably be tightened slightly.

  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 read-only retrieval tool with three parameters (one required), strong annotations, and clear schema documentation, the description provides adequate context: what's returned, how to source a slug, and the canonical nature of the guide. With no output schema, describing the return contents is helpful. Minor gaps like error handling aren't critical for this simple fetch tool.

  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 67%, with slug and sectionIds described in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the guide contains 'method and limitations' but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. The slug example and sectionIds behavior are already documented in the schema, so the description adds limited incremental value—baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Retrieve one canonical Homechecker guide by slug' with a specific verb+resource+method of lookup. It distinguishes itself by noting it retrieves 'source links, review metadata, method and limitations.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_guides—though the sibling names imply search vs retrieval, which is somewhat evident.

  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 clear guidance to 'Use a slug returned by list_guides or search_guides,' which connects it to sibling tools and provides the correct workflow for obtaining a valid slug. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when build_buyer_checklist is appropriate), but the slug-source guidance is practical and helpful.

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

• search_guidesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered by structure. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting it returns 'professionally authored' guidance and clarifying it does not assess actual properties — which reveals it's a knowledge retrieval tool rather than an evaluator. This is meaningful value beyond annotations, though it doesn't describe return format or ordering.

  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, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, usage in the second, and a critical limitation in the third. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

  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 search/retrieval tool with six optional filters plus one required query, the description effectively communicates when to use it and its fundamental limitation. The lack of an output schema and the large number of optional parameters make full completeness impossible without more param documentation, but the description covers the core decision points well enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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 low (29%), with only query and jurisdiction having descriptions. The description adds context that query is a 'natural-language question' and clarifies it's general guidance, but doesn't elaborate on era, limit, cluster, buyingStage, or propertyType semantics beyond what the schema enum provides for cluster. The description's guidance about what question types it handles partially compensates, providing a baseline 3.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search professionally authored Australian homebuyer guidance') and clearly scopes the domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it handles general property/inspection/disclosure questions and notably clarifies 'It does not assess an actual property' — a key differentiator from property-specific tools.

  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 lists specific question categories (property, inspection, disclosure, apartment, condition, maintenance, era, buying-process) giving clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, but the 'does not assess an actual property' exclusion is a strong implicit rejection for those needing property-level assessment, and individual parameters (cluster, jurisdiction) add contextual guidance.

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