Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_weather_forecastC
  2.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning data freshness, time range, units, or return format. Minimal transparency 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.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is extremely concise but at the cost of necessary information. It is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and sibling tools.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain what the forecast includes, how 'days' works, or any other contextual details.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of parameters (lat, lon, days, lang). The input schema defines constraints but the description does not elaborate on how these parameters affect the forecast.

  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 retrieves a weather forecast using coordinates. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather forecast'), and 'by coordinates' indicates the input method. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_current_weather', the purpose is clear enough.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings ('compare_weather', 'get_current_weather', 'get_weather_summary'). The description lacks context about the intended use case.

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

• get_weather_summaryC
  2.3/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the general purpose, failing to mention limitations, data sources, or any side effects. Essential for a tool that produces a derived output.

  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?

  While concise (one sentence), it is under-specified. The description lacks necessary details to be appropriately sized, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given no output schema, the description should clarify what the summary contains (e.g., temperature, conditions, time range). It does not, leaving the agent without enough information to judge the tool's suitability.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. No explanation of what lat/lon represent or how lang affects output, leaving the agent to infer from schema constraints alone.

  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?

  Clearly states it builds a short human-readable weather summary, distinguishing it from siblings like get_current_weather or get_weather_forecast by focusing on a summary output.

  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 like compare_weather or get_current_weather. Lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• compare_weatherC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, permissions required, or what it returns, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose, but it sacrifices necessary detail, making it minimally adequate rather than optimally structured for clarity.

  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 the complexity of nested objects, multiple parameters, and lack of output schema, the description fails to provide essential context on how to specify locations, the language option, or the response format, leaving significant gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

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

  The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond stating 'two locations'; the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and parameters like 'lang' and nested lat/lon/name are not explained, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

  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 'compare' and the resource 'current weather' with two locations, distinguishing it from siblings like get_current_weather which likely handles one location.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only states what it does without mentioning when not to use it or how it differs from siblings.

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

• get_current_weatherB
  3.1/5.0
  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 behavior. It only states the basic function without mentioning output format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.

  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 extremely concise at five words, which is efficient. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., separate sentences for purpose, parameters, output) and could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing conciseness.

  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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but omits expected return values (e.g., temperature, conditions). This gap could confuse an agent needing to interpret results. It is adequate but not fully complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond parameter names. It mentions 'coordinates' but does not explain each parameter's role, format (e.g., decimal degrees), or the optional 'lang' parameter. The agent gains no extra meaning from the description.

  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 'Get current weather by coordinates' specifies a clear verb ('Get'), resource ('current weather'), and method ('by coordinates'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_weather_forecast' (future) and 'compare_weather' (comparison).

  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 or when not to use it. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context implicitly.

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