Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• explore_variablesA
  4.2/5.0
  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. It successfully discloses return values ('Returns matching variables with descriptions and table context') and honestly warns about limitations ('known weak spot', 'basic keyword matching', 'Results may be incomplete'). Minor gap: does not explicitly confirm this is read-only, though implied by 'Discover'.

  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?

  Perfectly structured with four discrete sentences: purpose (1), usage guidelines (2), return value (3), and limitations (4). No redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place with high information density.

  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 3-parameter discovery tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, return behavior, and reliability warnings. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though could mention authentication or rate limiting if applicable.

  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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'concept or keyword' which aligns with the concept parameter, but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or semantic nuances beyond what the schema already provides via its examples and default values.

  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 opens with a specific verb ('Discover') + resource ('Census variables') + mechanism ('by concept or keyword'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'get_census_data' (which presumably fetches data by known codes rather than discovering them).

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use ('when the user describes what they want in plain language and you need to identify the correct variable codes'), effectively implying the alternative (use get_census_data when codes are already known). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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

• get_methodology_guidanceA
  4.2/5.0
  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. It discloses the topical coverage domain through the 9 enumerated topics, but omits mutation characteristics, caching behavior, or return format details that would be necessary for full transparency.

  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?

  Excellent structure with purpose front-loaded, followed by usage priority, scannable bulleted taxonomy of topics, and tactical closing advice. No wasted words; every sentence provides actionable guidance.

  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 2-parameter lookup tool without output schema, the description adequately covers scope through the topic taxonomy and workflow positioning. A brief description of return value format would elevate this to a 5.

  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?

  While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description significantly enriches the 'topics' parameter by enumerating 9 specific valid values with semantic descriptions (e.g., 'small_area: Population thresholds...'). However, it completely omits discussion of the 'domain' parameter.

  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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Query statistical methodology guidance') and explicitly positions the tool as the first step ('Call this FIRST') to distinguish it from sibling data retrieval tools like get_census_data.

  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 workflow guidance ('Call this FIRST for every query to ground your orientation') and parameter strategy ('When in doubt, request more topics rather than fewer'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling alternatives, preventing a 5.

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

• get_census_dataA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses that the tool returns statistical nuance (margins of error, fitness-for-use caveats) rather than raw data. However, it lacks explicit safety hints (though 'Retrieve' implies read-only) or error behavior documentation.

  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?

  Four sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, return value specification, prerequisite workflow, and interpretation warning. Information is front-loaded and 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?

  Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains return values (estimates, margins of error, pragmatics field) and contextualizes the statistical nature of Census data. Minor gap in not addressing rate limits or error states, but strong overall for a 7-parameter data retrieval tool.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 7 parameters including FIPS code formats and wildcard usage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage baseline.

  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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'Census data' and clearly distinguishes this from sibling get_methodology_guidance by stating it returns 'statistical methodology guidance,' 'estimates, margins of error, and pragmatic context'—indicating this is the data retrieval step as opposed to the guidance step.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit workflow sequencing ('Use this after grounding with get_methodology_guidance') and mandatory post-processing instructions ('Always review the pragmatics field before interpreting results'), clearly establishing when and how to use the tool relative to its sibling.

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