Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_bookB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the complete book or None if not found, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or error handling beyond the None case. Adequate for a simple read operation.

  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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded.

  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?

  The tool has one parameter and an output schema (from context signals). The description explains the return value including the None case. For a simple retrieval, this is nearly complete, though it could mention potential error responses or rate limiting. Still, it suffices.

  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?

  The input schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter (book_id). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter—it only restates that it's an ID. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

  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 returns the complete detail of a book by its ID, specifying the return includes all fields and the author's name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_books (multiple results) and books_by_author (filtered list).

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions where an alternative would be better. The agent must infer solely from the name.

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

• books_by_authorA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses the partial search capability but does not mention pagination, limits, or any other behavioral traits. The tool is simple, so minimal disclosure is acceptable but not exceptional.

  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: two sentences covering purpose and parameter semantics. No wasted words; the essential information is front-loaded.

  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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It could mention case sensitivity or result limits, but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward list operation.

  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?

  The parameter author_name has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining it expects a name or partial name with an example ('Borges'). This adds value beyond the raw 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 lists books by author using partial name search. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_book (single book) and list_authors (list authors).

  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 for listing books by author but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_books. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• library_statsA
  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 adequately describes the output ('totals and availability') but does not disclose any other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, potential latency, or error conditions. For a simple query tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

  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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any 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?

  Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an AI agent to understand what the tool returns. It could benefit from clarifying that the output is a summary (e.g., counts of books, authors), but it is complete enough for its simplicity.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the input schema is complete with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 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 that the tool returns a library summary of totals and availability. It distinguishes from sibling tools like books_by_author, get_book, list_authors, and search_books, which focus on specific queries rather than an overview.

  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 that the tool should be used for a high-level summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The purpose is clear, but guidance on context is minimal.

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

• list_authorsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description accurately describes the output (authors with counts). It is a read-only list without side effects, which is clear. Could mention sorting or caching but not necessary for such a simple 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?

  One concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

  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?

  Given zero parameters and a simple output (authors with counts), the description fully conveys what the tool does. An output schema exists but is not needed to understand the behavior.

  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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info but none is needed; baseline score of 4 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 it returns all authors with their book counts, using a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like books_by_author (which likely requires an author parameter) and search_books (which queries).

  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?

  No explicit usage context or alternatives are provided, but the tool is simple and parameterless, so usage is implied: use when needing a complete list of authors and their book counts.

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

• search_booksA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses case-insensitive partial search, exact genre filtering, and the behavior of available_only (returns only books with copies). This is adequate for a read-only search tool, though it does not mention return limits 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?

  The description is a well-structured docstring with Args and Returns sections, using only two lines of prose plus parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

  For a search tool with 3 parameters (none required) and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, return format (list of books with author), and edge case (empty list). It does not mention pagination or sorting, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

  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?

  The input schema has no description for any parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: query for partial case-insensitive title search, genre for exact match (with example values), and available_only as a boolean filter. This adds critical 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 explicitly states it searches books by title and/or genre, specifying the two search dimensions. Sibling tools like books_by_author and get_book indicate that this tool is distinct in filtering by title/genre rather than author or single book retrieval.

  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 clearly outlines the three parameters and their effects (partial case-insensitive search, exact genre filter, availability filter). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, but the context of siblings combined with the parameter explanations provides sufficient usage guidance.

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