Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_museum_guideA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it searches a catalogue, returns specific data (2026 ticket info, hours, etc.) and is presumably read-only. No mention of side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate.

  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?

  Two sentences: first explains purpose and output, second gives usage examples. No extraneous information, front-loaded with key details.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, description explicitly lists what is returned (ticket info, opening hours, etc.). Three optional parameters are common and well-documented. Sufficient for an agent to understand when to use and what to expect.

  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 already describes all three parameters (query, city, country) with 100% coverage. Description adds no additional semantics beyond listing example queries, which is already implied by the schema descriptions.

  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 searches travel.art's catalogue of museum visitor guides, lists specific return fields (ticket info, hours, address, etc.) and provides concrete example queries. Differentiates from siblings (find_art_events, recommend_art_trip) by focusing on museum visit logistics.

  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?

  Provides explicit usage examples like 'how to visit the Louvre' that clarify when to invoke. Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, but the examples strongly imply its specific domain of museum guides.

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

• find_art_eventsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (dates, venues, ticket info, summary, link) and implies a read-only search, but does not mention pagination or potential result size limits.

  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 paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality and return values. However, it does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., activeOn vs startsAfter/endsBefore) but the schema handles that.

  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 provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already gives for each parameter, relying on the schema for details.

  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 searches travel.art's catalogue of art events (biennales, art fairs, festivals) and distinguishes it from siblings (find_museum_guide, recommend_art_trip) by specifying the exact domain.

  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 explicit example queries (e.g., 'when is Venice Biennale 2026') that clarify when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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

• recommend_art_tripA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'no fabrication' and that the recommendation is 'grounded in published data only', which is critical for trust. However, it does not mention side effects or permissions; given it is a read-only recommendation, this is sufficient.

  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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and main constraint. The second sentence details outputs and reiterates data integrity. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

  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 the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: events, museum guides, and links. It also addresses the potential concern of data fabrication. For a tool with three parameters (one required) and clear output, this is 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?

  The input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description does not add significant additional meaning beyond restating that startDate/endDate filter events. Given 100% schema coverage, a 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?

  The description clearly states a specific action ('Recommend an art-tourism trip itinerary'), the resource ('for a specific city'), and a key constraint ('using only travel.art's published content'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools find_art_events and find_museum_guide, which are more focused on individual events or guides.

  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 explains what the tool returns (events, museum guides, links) and emphasizes reliance on published data. It implicitly guides usage for full itinerary planning, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives. A clear note on when not to use it (e.g., for single-event lookup) would improve it.

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