Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_land_use_plan_by_pnuA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by specifying the integrated nature of the query (land register, zoning, assessed price), but does not detail behaviors like response size or rate limits. Given strong annotations, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with tool prefix, no wasted words. However, being in Korean may reduce clarity for non-Korean agents. Overall efficient.

  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?

  With two parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description captures the main function. Lacks usage examples or return format details, but is minimally adequate for a simple query 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?

  Input schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description mentions PNU (19 digits) but does not add new meaning beyond schema. stdrYear is not elaborated in description. Baseline 3 as 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 purpose: integrated inquiry of land register, zoning, and assessed price by PNU (19 digits). It includes a specific verb (조회) and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like exports and get_land_use_plan by emphasizing the PNU key.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_land_use_plan. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.

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

• export_land_report_dxfA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds export format (DXF), layout, and the bufferMeters query requirement. No contradiction with annotations; provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

  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 sentence that efficiently conveys key information (layout, buffer handling). It is not overly verbose but could be better structured with separate sentences for clarity.

  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?

  The description covers the main purpose and key parameter behavior. However, it omits output details (e.g., file path or binary) and does not fully explain the 'request info' component. Adequate but incomplete for a complex export tool without output schema.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description repeats bufferMeters behavior and default but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already 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 it exports a combined report (request info, land use plan, cadastral map) as a DXF file based on a parcel address, with specific layout details. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_cadastral_dxf (cadastral only) and those using PNU.

  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 implicitly guides usage by focusing on address-based export and instructs to ask for bufferMeters if unspecified. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs siblings or exclusion criteria (e.g., use _by_pnu if PNU is available).

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

• get_land_use_planA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that the tool integrates multiple data sources (land register, zoning, land price), which is useful context but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond that, such as authentication needs or rate 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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and adds value, with no redundant information.

  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 an output schema, the description provides useful context by listing the integrated data types. However, it could be more complete by mentioning output format or any constraints. Still, it is adequate for a read-only query tool with rich annotations.

  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% with both parameters having descriptions. The description mentions the address parameter implicitly but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: integrated inquiry of land register, zoning districts, and individual publicly announced land price by lot number address. The verb '조회' (query) and resource '토지이용계획' (land use plan) are specific, and the sibling tool 'get_land_use_plan_by_pnu' differentiates by query parameter (address vs PNU).

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_land_use_plan_by_pnu' or export tools. However, the tool name and sibling names imply address-based querying, so usage is implied but not formally guided.

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

• export_cadastral_dxfA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting it is based on a continuous cadastral map and for reference purposes, and clarifies the default bufferMeters value and the ask-before-use convention, which supplements the annotations well.

  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 short, front-loaded sentences convey the main purpose and a key usage guideline with zero fluff. Every word serves a purpose.

  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 parameter count and existence of annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output format (DXF), the base map, and the buffer handling. However, it could mention what the DXF file contains (e.g., including neighbors) or clarify that crs and includeNeighbors are optional but well-documented in the schema.

  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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameters. It adds one extra piece of info: the default bufferMeters and the requirement to ask if omitted. This is helpful but not extensive. Baseline 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 the verb 'export' and the resource 'parcel boundaries as DXF file by parcel address'. It distinguishes from siblings that use PNU codes (e.g., export_cadastral_dxf_by_pnu) by specifying address-based lookup.

  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 clear context for when to use (to export DXF by address) and includes a crucial guideline: if bufferMeters is not specified, ask the user first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for PNU-based export.

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

• export_cadastral_dxf_by_pnuA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the export is 'for reference' (참고용), implying non-authoritative output, which is useful additional context beyond annotations.

  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, focused sentence with all critical information front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, no filler.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately mentions the output format (DXF) and purpose. It covers the main behavioral aspects and parameter guidance. Minor gap: no detail on file naming or return structure, but acceptable for a well-annotated tool.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value beyond schema by instructing the agent to ask the user if bufferMeters is not specified, and it mentions the default of 50m. This addresses a key usage nuance.

  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's purpose: exporting parcel boundaries to DXF using a 19-digit PNU. It includes context (based on continuous cadastral map, for reference) and differentiates from siblings like 'export_cadastral_dxf' by specifying the PNU input.

  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 a clear usage guideline: ask the user if bufferMeters is unspecified. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this over alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• export_land_report_dxf_by_pnuA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output layout and the ask-for-buffer behavior, which goes beyond the annotations.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's main purpose and layout, followed by a usage rule. No wasted 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?

  For a complex tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, layout, default behavior, and usage rule. Missing details like error handling are acceptable given the rich schema and annotations.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the 'ask first' instruction for bufferMeters and provides an example PNU, giving extra context 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 clearly states the tool exports a combined DXF report (request info, land use plan, cadastral map) for a given PNU. It specifies the layout and distinguishes from siblings by being a comprehensive one-page report.

  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 explicitly instructs to ask if bufferMeters is unspecified and provides a default. While it does not directly compare to siblings, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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