Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_law_dataC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the 'detailed data' includes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

  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 Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't explain what 'detailed data' includes, potential response formats, or any behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what to expect from the tool's execution.

  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 description mentions that a law number must be specified ('法令番号を指定して'), which aligns with the single required parameter 'lawNum'. However, the input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description and example format. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already documented in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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: '法令番号を指定して法令の詳細データを取得します' (Retrieve detailed law data by specifying a law number). It specifies both the action (取得します - retrieve) and resource (法令の詳細データ - detailed law data), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_law_revision or search_law, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (get_law_revision, search_law) or explain when this specific retrieval method is appropriate versus searching or getting revisions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

• get_law_revisionC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('取得します') but doesn't describe any behavioral traits: whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the revision history response looks like, what format it returns, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns structured historical data, more context about the output would be helpful to the agent.

  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 description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, the input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'lawNum' clearly documented with an example. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 '法令の改正履歴を取得します' clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving revision history of laws. It uses a specific verb ('取得します' - retrieve) and resource ('法令の改正履歴' - law revision history). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_law_data, search_law), which likely retrieve different aspects of law information.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_law_data, search_law). There's no mention of alternative tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• search_lawC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions keyword search functionality but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination (only implies limit via parameter), error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the search results look like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

  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 appropriately concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with additional capability. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

  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?

  For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether there's pagination beyond the limit parameter, or any behavioral constraints. The description should provide more context given the lack of structured metadata.

  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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions keyword search but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: searching for laws/regulations by name or number using keyword search. It specifies the resource (laws/regulations) and action (search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_law_data' or 'get_law_revision' which likely retrieve specific laws rather than search broadly.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get_law_data' or 'get_law_revision'. It mentions keyword search capability but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable to direct retrieval or other alternatives.

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