Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• jp_is_business_dayA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it returns the reason (weekday or holiday name) for non-business days, defaults to Japan time when date is omitted, and supports 2020-2099. This gives useful behavioral context for callers.

  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, covering purpose, return reason, default, and supported range with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured.

  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 one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the key behavior and return of reason, but does not specify the exact return data structure (e.g., boolean plus reason field). Nevertheless, it is adequate for its simplicity.

  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 already describes the 'date' parameter with its meaning and default behavior, and the description does not add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Therefore baseline of 3 applies given 100% 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 determines if a date is a business day (weekday and not a holiday), returns the reason for non-business days, and supports an optional date with default to today. It distinguishes from sibling tools like adding business days or calculating deadlines by its scoped function.

  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 its usage for checking business day status but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Agents can infer it based on the description, but there is no direct guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools.

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

• jp_business_days_betweenA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior by specifying both endpoints are included and enforcing the start<=end constraint. It does not detail error handling or return type, but 'count' reasonably implies an integer.

  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, direct sentence that immediately states the core action and boundary conditions. There is no filler, and it is optimally front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the inclusive date range, the ordering requirement, and that the result is a business-day count, so no output schema is necessary.

  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% and both parameters already have descriptions and format patterns (YYYY-MM-DD). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'カウントします' (counts) with a clear resource: business days between start and end dates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jp_is_business_day and jp_add_business_days by conveying a date-range counting operation, and it explicitly notes inclusive boundaries.

  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 for use: it counts inclusive business days and states the precondition that the start date must be before or equal to the end date. It does not explicitly reference alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the operation is sufficiently well-defined.

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

• jp_calc_deadlineA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains that weekends and holidays are not counted ('土日・祝日は数えず') and that the calculation is based on actual business days for action, which provides deeper behavioral transparency without contradicting the 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 only two sentences, with the core action and output stated first, followed by a practical use case and the business-day behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no ifs, buts, or unnecessary 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?

  For a simple calculator with two parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the purpose, the use case, and the holiday-excluding behavior. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's date pattern, this is not a significant omission.

  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 both parameters with 100% description coverage, including formats and constraints. The description reinforces their meaning by specifying that businessDaysBefore is a count of business days before the referenceDate (e.g., '指定した営業日数だけ前'), and it gives an example usage. This adds a bit beyond the baseline for full 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 what the tool does: it calculates the 'action deadline date' that is a specified number of business days before a reference date. It uses a specific verb ('計算します') and resource ('基準日から...逆算'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the backward counting direction, unlike add_business_days.

  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 concrete use case: '「基準日のX営業日前までに提出・対応する」という管理(更新期限のリマインダー設定など)に使えます。' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools, so it lacks the explicit exclusion criteria for a 5.

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

• jp_add_business_daysA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the counting logic: weekends and holidays are excluded, the start date is excluded from the count, zero is an invalid input, and the default start date is today in Japan time. These are critical behavioral details that affect how the agent invokes and interprets the tool.

  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 passage that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the key rules in sequence. Every clause provides relevant information, with no filler or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: the calculation rule, sign semantics, holiday handling, start-date exclusion, invalid days, and default date. It does not specify the return format, but that is implicitly a date string and not necessary given the context.

  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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), and the description largely restates them in prose. It adds one important non-schema constraint — that days cannot be zero — and clarifies that the start date itself is not counted, which provides marginal added value over the schema.

  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 calculates the date N business days after or before a specified date, using a specific verb ('計算します') and resource (business days). The sign convention for days is explicit, and the behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like jp_is_business_day or jp_business_days_between, even though it does not name them.

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you need to offset a date by business days) and includes important rules like excluding weekends/holidays and that the start date is not counted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so the agent must infer that from the sibling tool names.

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