Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compare_countriesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions comparing 'across all available metrics' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, source limitations, error handling for invalid country names, or whether the comparison is side-by-side in a structured format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries external data.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating metric examples, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the comparison output looks like (e.g., table, JSON), how metrics are presented, or potential limitations. For a data-fetching tool with two parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about behavior and results.

  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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (country names or slugs). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameters represent the two countries to compare, but doesn't provide additional context like format constraints or examples beyond what's in the schema.

  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's purpose: comparing two countries across multiple metrics. It specifies the verb 'compare' and resource 'countries', and lists examples of metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_country' or 'search_countries', which might also provide country data.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_country' (for single country data) or 'search_countries' (for filtering multiple countries), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for comparison scenarios.

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

• get_countryB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return data (population, area, etc.), which is helpful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the query doesn't match), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

  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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks output schema, so the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does list key statistics. With no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context, making it minimally viable.

  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%, with the parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema as accepting country name, slug, or ISO code. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose: 'Get detailed data about a country by name, slug, or ISO code.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('country'), and input methods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_countries' or 'compare_countries' beyond mentioning the detailed data returned.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_country' over 'search_countries' or 'compare_countries', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly stated.

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

• search_citiesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 adds some context: it mentions the database size (13.4M cities) and that results include population and country. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which are important for a search operation.

  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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about the database and return data without unnecessary details, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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 moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic operation and return data, but lacks information on output format, error cases, or performance considerations, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

  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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the search is by name and returns matching cities, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

  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's purpose: 'Search for cities worldwide by name.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('cities'), and scope ('worldwide'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_cities_by_country' or 'search_countries', which is why it doesn't score a 5.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_cities_by_country' or 'search_countries', nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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

• list_cities_by_countryB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), or what the output format looks like. The mention of '13.4M cities globally' adds some context but insufficient for a mutation 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?

  The description is extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, capabilities, and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (city objects with what fields?), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The '13.4M cities' scope hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing output and behavioral information.

  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 schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions sorting and minimum population filter but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('List'), resource ('cities'), and scope ('in a specific country'), with specific details about sorting and filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_cities' by emphasizing country-specific listing rather than general search.

  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 cities within a country with sorting/filtering options, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_cities' or 'get_country'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

• search_countriesB
  3.4/5.0
  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 discloses that the tool returns 'a list of matching countries with basic data,' which adds some behavioral context (output format). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or what 'basic data' entails, leaving gaps for a search operation.

  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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose and output. However, the mention of 'optional region filter' without corresponding schema support adds a minor inefficiency.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output type but lacks details on error handling, data format, or how the 'region filter' works (since it's not in the schema). For a search tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

  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 schema fully documents the two parameters (query and limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional region filter,' but this isn't reflected in the input schema, creating a slight mismatch. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most param semantics.

  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's purpose: 'Search for countries by name or keyword, with optional region filter.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (countries), and scope (name/keyword with region filter). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_cities' or 'get_country' beyond the resource type, missing full sibling distinction.

  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 searching countries by name/keyword with region filtering, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_country' (for specific country data) or 'search_cities' (for city searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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