Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_received_documentsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Fetch' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, date-range constraints, or potential API quirks.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or 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?

  Despite being concise, the description combined with the fully documented schema and output schema provides sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage differentiation, which is addressed in the usage_guidelines dimension.

  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 has 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the baseline for high 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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('documents RECEIVED by your business'), with a concrete example (supplier invoices) and source system (myDATA). The emphasis on 'RECEIVED' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transmitted_documents.

  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 word 'RECEIVED' implicitly contrasts with transmitted documents, suggesting when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools or situations where this tool is inappropriate.

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

• get_transmitted_documentsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. It only says 'Fetch documents...' without disclosing potential side effects, permissions, pagination behavior, or rate limits. While 'fetch' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks needed behavioral context for a tool with no 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, front-loaded sentence that clearly and efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted text or 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 output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. It lacks some usage guidance and behavioral details, but the structured data compensates for potential return-value explanations. It is reasonably complete for a moderately complex 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% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying date formats or the role of 'max_results' and 'include_details.' It simply restates the general purpose.

  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 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'documents ISSUED by your business (sales invoices, receipts) from myDATA.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_received_documents by emphasizing 'ISSUED' as opposed to received.

  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 by stating the tool retrieves issued documents, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_received_documents for incoming documents,' 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.

• get_expense_summaryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation behavior ('aggregates documents per counterparty/type/classification') and the decoding of classification codes, and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch'. However, it does not mention pagination, error handling, or other operational behaviors, leaving some gaps.

  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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is free of filler, and every phrase adds value—including the source, aggregation details, and the decoding behavior.

  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?

  With a comprehensive schema (100% parameter coverage) and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior. It covers the source, aggregation, and classification decoding. It does not explain pagination explicitly, but the max_results parameter description covers that, making the overall context complete.

  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 provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the description is not required to explain them. The description adds minor context about how results are grouped, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, which the schema already handles well.

  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 'Fetch' and the resource 'EXPENSE bookings per classification from myDATA e-books (RequestMyExpenses)', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_income_summary and get_received_documents. The additional detail about aggregation per counterparty/type/classification further clarifies its exact function.

  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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the clear focus on EXPENSE bookings and the sibling tool names imply its usage context. It provides clear context that this is for expense summaries, without explicit exclusions.

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

• get_income_summaryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses aggregation behavior and label decoding, but does not mention pagination/truncation (max_results) or any limitations/caveats. It's adequate but lacks depth.

  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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word serves a purpose. No filler 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?

  Given the presence of complete schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality sufficiently. However, it could add a note about pagination and explicit usage context to be fully complete.

  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 parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description adds no extra insight into parameters, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the 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 tool fetches INCOME bookings per classification from myDATA e-books, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and distinguishes it from siblings that handle different document types (received, transmitted, expense). The mention of aggregation and decoded labels adds precision.

  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 this tool is for income summaries, and the sibling names indicate alternatives, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose it for income summary tasks.

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