Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_placesC
  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 search functionality but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of places, detailed records), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether all parameters are optional (as indicated by required: []), or how the search behaves with multiple criteria. The absence of output schema increases the need for return value description.

  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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions the main search criteria but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions (e.g., how parameters interact, search logic). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'search' and the resource 'places', and lists the main search criteria (name, year, administrative level). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings 'get_place_historical_context' and 'search_place_by_id', which would require a 5.

  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_place_historical_context' and 'search_place_by_id'. It mentions search criteria but doesn't indicate when this tool is preferred over alternatives or any prerequisites for use.

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

• get_place_historical_contextB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical context and relationships, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

  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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted 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?

  Given the tool's complexity (simple single-parameter retrieval), high schema coverage (100%), and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly without annotations or output schema to fill in gaps.

  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, with the 'id' parameter well-documented in the schema itself (format: hvd_numbers, pattern: ^hvd_\d+$). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for the ID, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical context and hierarchical relationships of a place', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_place_by_id' or 'search_places', which might also retrieve place information but with different scopes or outputs.

  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 prerequisites, such as needing a place ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'search_place_by_id' or 'search_places', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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

• search_place_by_idB
  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 states this is a query operation ('Query historical place details'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention other important behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'historical' entails. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

  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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality immediately clear.

  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?

  For a simple read operation with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral traits, differentiation from siblings, and what 'historical place details' actually returns. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values.

  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 add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the work, though the description could have explained why the ID format matters or when to use different formats.

  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 action ('Query historical place details') and resource ('by unique ID'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_places' or 'get_place_historical_context', which likely have overlapping functionality.

  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 like 'search_places' or 'get_place_historical_context'. It mentions 'by unique ID' which implies usage when you have a specific ID, but doesn't explicitly state this as a guideline or mention exclusions.

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