Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_dry_spell_statusB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention that severity thresholds are a general rule of thumb and not a calibrated index, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on data sources, update frequency, geographic coverage, rate limits, or what exactly the return value looks like. Significant behavioral traits are unspecified.

  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 extremely concise with just two sentences. It is front-loaded, stating the core purpose first, followed by an important caveat. There is no unnecessary information, and every word adds value.

  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?

  Given the complexity of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a caveat but lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., numerical values, severity categories) or any edge cases. It is minimally complete but could be enhanced to better inform the agent about the response format.

  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 4 parameters, so the agent can understand their meaning from the schema. The description does not add further explanation of parameters beyond mentioning 'lookback window' and 'dry days', but this is redundant given the schema's clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 the tool checks consecutive dry days and total precipitation over a lookback window as a rough drought-risk indicator. It is specific about the resource (dry spell status) and the action (check). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_frost_and_heat_risk or get_growing_conditions, though the unique purpose is evident.

  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?

  The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for drought risk assessment, but there is no explicit statement of when to use or when not to use, nor mentions of prerequisites or contextual cues. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and purpose alone.

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

• get_frost_and_heat_riskA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions scanning the forecast and flagging risky days, but lacks details on output format, behavior with missing parameters, or any side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

  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, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the output. 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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context on results and defaults. It mentions flagging days but not how the risk is represented. The tool has 7 parameters but the description lacks completeness regarding their use.

  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 schema itself documents parameters well. The description adds minimal parameter meaning (e.g., 'flags each day with any risk found'). Baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

  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 scans forecast for frost/freeze and heat stress risks, specifying the threat to crops. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dry_spell_status or get_growing_conditions by focusing on temperature extremes.

  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?

  The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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

• get_irrigation_adviceA
  3.6/5.0
  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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool combines specific data sources and returns an estimate with all inputs shown, but it does not mention whether it modifies any state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles errors. The disclosure that it is 'not a certified recommendation' adds some transparency, but more detail is needed for a safe and informed call.

  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 extremely concise at just two sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('Estimate whether irrigation is needed') and immediately specifies the data sources and limitations. Every phrase adds value, and there is no wasted text.

  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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It states it returns 'a data-grounded estimate with all inputs shown', which is somewhat vague but gives a reasonable expectation. For a tool with 5 parameters (2 required), it provides enough context for a basic understanding, though details on the exact output structure (e.g., JSON format, fields) are missing.

  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 each parameter in the input schema already has a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, 'forecast_days' and 'management_allowed_depletion' are well-documented in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema itself is sufficient.

  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 the tool's purpose: estimating irrigation need by combining soil and weather data. It specifies data sources (SoilGrids, Open-Meteo) and distinguishes itself as a 'data-grounded estimate' rather than a certified recommendation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dry_spell_status' or 'get_soil_profile', which could be related but serve different purposes.

  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 mentions that the output is not a certified recommendation, providing a limited usage caveat. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_dry_spell_status' or 'get_growing_conditions', nor does it describe prerequisites (e.g., requiring soil profile data) or conditions where the tool is not appropriate.

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

• get_soil_profileA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses data source and resolution, but with no annotations, fails to mention response format, rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior for invalid coordinates. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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?

  Single sentence packed with essential information: action, data fields, source, resolution, depth variability. No filler, front-loaded with verb.

  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?

  Without output schema or annotations, provides sufficient context on returned data (specific soil properties) and source. Missing response structure and error handling, but adequate for a straightforward lookup 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for latitude, longitude, and depths. Description adds 'multiple depths' and source context but no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline score 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?

  Clearly states the tool fetches soil properties (texture, pH, organic carbon, water-holding) from SoilGrids for a given coordinate at multiple depths. Distinct from sibling tools focused on weather and crop advice.

  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?

  Implies use for soil data queries, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get_growing_conditions. Lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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

• get_growing_conditionsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It honestly lists the data included but does not address data recency, error handling for invalid coordinates, or any rate limits. It provides a basic but incomplete picture.

  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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key verb 'Snapshot.'

  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 description covers the main data categories (weather, soil, forecast) but does not specify output structure or units. For a tool with no output schema, a bit more detail would enhance completeness, but it is adequate for a summary 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 descriptions are complete for all parameters (latitude, longitude, forecast_days). The tool description adds no extra detail beyond 'for a location,' so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline score of 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 it provides a snapshot of current weather, recent soil temperature/moisture, and a short daily forecast, defining it as a general-purpose summary for a location. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_frost_and_heat_risk or get_growing_degree_days which are more specialized.

  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 calls it a 'general-purpose...summary,' implying it should be used for an overview rather than specific data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• get_growing_degree_daysA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the modified calculation method (floors Tmin, optionally caps Tmax) and data sources (historical reanalysis, forecast up to 16 days), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

  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?

  While the description explains purpose and method, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., single accumulated value or time series) and possible errors. Given no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

  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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining defaults (base_temp_c=10 for corn/soybean), optionality (upper_cap_c), and the standard modified method (floor_tmin_at_base), enhancing parameter understanding.

  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 ('Calculate') and resource ('growing degree days'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other agricultural indices like frost risk or irrigation advice.

  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 explains the agricultural context (crop heat accumulation, development stages) and date support (historical and forecast), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the listed siblings.

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

• geocode_locationA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It states it returns ranked matches, implies multiple results, and warns against compound strings. However, it does not detail error handling, empty results, or response format beyond coordinates.

  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: one for purpose and one for usage context. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

  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 tool's simplicity and rich schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, relationship to siblings, and input best practices. Lacks explicit mention of output format (e.g., coordinates structure) and error scenarios, but context signals indicate no output schema, so the burden is partly on 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% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 resolves a free-text place name to ranked latitude/longitude matches, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is a required first step before using them, which take coordinates.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance: use this tool first to obtain coordinates, then use sibling tools. It implies when not to use (when coordinates already available) and sets context effectively.

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