Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 does not mention read-only nature, permission requirements, pagination, or result format. The term 'governed' hints at access control but lacks specifics.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently without redundancy.

  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?

  Despite full parameter schema coverage, there is no output schema and no behavioral context. A full-text search tool typically needs information about result structure, pagination, scope qualification, and access controls; the description leaves these gaps, making it insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

  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 documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal context by referring to 'data scopes', which vaguely relates to the 'tables' parameter, but does not provide additional semantic value beyond 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 a full-text search over governed data scopes, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table, but does not explicitly distinguish from the 'query' sibling, so it isn't fully differentiated.

  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 alternatives like 'query'. The description implies a search use case but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

• list_tablesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It truthfully states the operation but does not disclose return format, error handling, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context is added beyond the name.

  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, zero waste, front-loaded action. Excellent.

  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 simple list operation with one optional param, the description conveys the core action. However, without an output schema, it doesn't hint at whether table metadata (schema, type) is returned, and no usage guidance is provided. Adequate but slightly thin.

  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 schema already documents the connector parameter with description and default behavior (optional, defaults to all). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 ('List') and specifies the resource ('database tables') and scope ('company data connectors'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like describe_table and query.

  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 exploring available tables but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like describe_table or query. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

• queryA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and SELECT restriction, which are important. However, it omits expected return format, error handling, and potential execution limits, leaving gaps in 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?

  Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

  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?

  Tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. Description covers key constraints but lacks mention of return value expectations or when to choose siblings. Gaps exist but are not severe for a basic 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no new parameter details beyond reinforcing SELECT-only, which is already present in the sql parameter description. Meets 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?

  Description clearly states the tool runs a SQL query against the company database, using specific verb 'Run' and resource 'SQL query'. It explicitly mentions read-only and SELECT-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tables, describe_table, and search.

  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 exclusion ('Only SELECT is allowed') and conveys the tool's purpose as arbitrary SQL querying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when to use them, but the context makes the tool's role obvious relative to siblings.

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

• describe_tableA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no other behavioral details (e.g., error handling, output format) are disclosed. It's adequate but minimal.

  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 of 9 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No fluff or repetition.

  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 is simple, with full schema parameter descriptions. The description tells the agent what to expect (schema and column descriptions), which is sufficient for selection. Lacks explicit permission or failure notes but is adequate for a read-only introspection 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?

  The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'table' and 'connector'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so 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 'Get' and the resource: schema and column descriptions of a specific table. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables (listing tables) and query/search (data operations).

  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 context is clear: use when you need schema metadata for a known table. The phrase 'specific table' implies a prerequisite, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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