Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_booksA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing return fields and noting the catalog is public, which implies no authentication needed. It does not disclose pagination or result structure, but annotations reduce the burden.

  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?

  Two sentences with no waste. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a useful parameter tip and return-field list. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 search tool with rich schema coverage and safety annotations, the description captures the essential return fields and public scope. Since there is no output schema, the lack of explicit list/pagination structure is a minor gap, but overall the definition is adequate.

  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 100%, and the one parameter hint in the description ('Use author for exact author searches') largely duplicates the schema's own author description. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the already thorough 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?

  States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the public Reknihy.cz catalog.' It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing public catalog search rather than specific book retrieval. The mention of author exact search and listed return fields further clarifies scope.

  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?

  Provides clear parameter usage guidance: 'Use author for exact author searches.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like find_book_by_isbn or get_book, leaving tool-selection context implied.

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

• find_book_by_isbnA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('public catalog') and exact-match semantics, but does not disclose behavior like no-match results or return format. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the operation and scope, with zero filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the description is immediately scannable.

  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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with a clear resource and sibling context, the description is sufficient. It omits what happens when no match is found, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

  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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage for the single isbn parameter, including hyphen flexibility. The description adds the ISBN-10/ISBN-13 format constraint and reinforces the exact-match intent, which is a small but genuine semantic increment 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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a precise resource ('public Reknihy.cz catalog'), and an explicit qualifier ('exact ISBN-10 or ISBN-13 match') that distinguishes it from a broader search. An agent can immediately tell this tool is for precise ISBN lookup rather than fuzzy queries.

  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 phrase 'exact ISBN-10 or ISBN-13 match' gives a clear trigger condition: use this when a precise ISBN is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_books for partial matches, but the exact-match language provides clear context without needing an exclusion list.

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

• get_bookA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds a useful provenance detail about the ID source, but says nothing about return shape or error behavior, which is acceptable but not exceptional for a simple getter.

  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 that front-loads the action and immediately identifies the source of the required ID. There is no redundant or filler content.

  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 single-parameter lookup tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It does not detail the shape of the returned book details, but the title and description communicate the intended result sufficiently.

  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 input schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter with type, bounds, and meaning. The description adds value by specifying that this ID is returned from search_books, which clarifies how an agent should obtain and use it.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('book details'), and anchors the lookup key to 'the numeric product ID returned from search_books.' This clearly differentiates it from find_book_by_isbn, which would use an ISBN instead.

  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?

  It states the intended path: use this tool with a product ID that came from search_books. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude when to use find_book_by_isbn as an alternative.

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

• list_categoriesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'public' scope, implying no special authorization is needed, and indicates the output is intended for downstream use with search_books. No contradictions with annotations were found.

  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 short sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable cross-tool context. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple read-only listing tool, the description plus the complete input schema and rich annotations cover the essential information. The tool's output purpose is hinted at by noting that slug/ID can be passed to search_books, and no output schema means the description does not need to explain return fields in detail.

  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 page, perPage, and hideEmpty are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema handles it. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List public catalog categories.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by explaining that a category slug or ID can be passed to search_books, clarifying the role of this tool in the larger workflow.

  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 useful context by explicitly linking the output to search_books: 'A category slug or ID can be passed to search_books.' This implies the tool is used to discover valid category identifiers before searching. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear enough.

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