Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_transit_timeA
  3.6/5.0
  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 hints at non-destructiveness via 'estimate', but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens for invalid postal codes. It also does not describe the output format, which is critical since no output schema exists. The only behavioral note is that service codes depend on the agreement, but that is more of a parameter constraint than a behavioral trait.

  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 with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the note about service codes is placed right after, which is relevant. It is concise and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 the tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., estimated days or a range), does not mention the optional dateOfDeparture parameter, and provides no guidance on error handling or edge cases. An agent would need to infer the output format or risk misinterpreting the result. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'so what'.

  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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides an example service code (19) and explains that codes depend on the agreement, adding value. However, it does not explain the purpose of dateOfDeparture (though the schema includes its format and default) nor the postal code format. The country codes are self-evident from the enums. Overall, the description adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully cover the gaps.

  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 function: estimating PostNord transit time between two postal codes for a given service code. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('transit time'), and the scope is well-defined. The siblings are about tracking and service points, so no confusion with 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?

  The description implies when to use this tool (when a transit time estimate is needed) and the context that service codes depend on the user's PostNord agreement. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tools are clearly distinct. It gives a practical example (service code 19) that helps an agent understand typical usage.

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

• find_service_pointsA
  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 mentions the return fields (names, addresses, opening hours, coordinates), providing some transparency, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or any limitations. For a search operation, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

  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, concise and well-structured. It conveys the essential information without unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return fields. It explains the input method and the result content. It lacks examples or edge cases, but for a straightforward search tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use correctly.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context by explaining 'by address or postal code' and 'nearest', which clarifies the purpose of city, streetName, streetNumber, and postalCode parameters. This goes slightly beyond the basic schema coverage.

  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: finding nearest PostNord service points by address or postal code. It uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('PostNord service points'), and distinguishes from the coordinate-based sibling tool by specifying the search method.

  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 this tool is for address/postal code searches but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus the coordinate-based alternative (find_service_points_by_coordinates). It lacks a direct statement about alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• find_service_points_by_coordinatesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state there are no side effects, rate limits, or special behaviors.

  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?

  A single, focused sentence that conveys the purpose without unnecessary detail or repetition.

  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?

  No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the result contains (e.g., distance, address, opening hours), leaving some ambiguity for a lookup 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?

  The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds important context like WGS84 coordinate system and PostNord service points. Parameter descriptions are clear and meaningful.

  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?

  Clearly states it finds the nearest PostNord service points by geographic coordinates, distinguishing it from sibling tools like track_shipment and find_service_points.

  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 implies use when coordinates are available, but does not explicitly contrast with the generic find_service_points tool or state when to choose one over the other.

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

• track_shipmentA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the output content (tracking history, status events, estimated delivery, details) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. With no annotations to indicate safety, the description could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., 'does not modify any data').

  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 long, direct, and free of extraneous information. It efficiently covers both the action and the expected output without redundancy.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (tracking history, status events, estimated delivery, delivery details). It does not detail response format or error cases, but for a tracking tool, the input requirements and high-level output are sufficient for an agent to decide on and invoke the 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?

  The description adds value by including a concrete example ('e.g. 84971563697SE') and clarifying that the 'id' parameter accepts multiple identifier types (shipment ID, item ID, or reference). The locale parameter's purpose and default are clearly explained, though the description largely mirrors the schema descriptions.

  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: tracking a PostNord shipment by ID, item, or reference, and enumerates the returned data (tracking history, status events, estimated delivery, delivery details). It is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on service points and transit time, not shipment status tracking.

  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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (whenever a shipment's status is required) by listing the exact input types and deliverables. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling tools address different needs (service points, transit time), making the intended use obvious.

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