Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• open_weather_forecast_israelC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, or its side effects. It simply states it opens a site and handles messages.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very concise (one line), but it lacks structure and could be more informative without adding length. It is not overly verbose but could benefit from clarity.

  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 no parameters and an output schema (not detailed), the description might be sufficient for a simple open action. However, it does not explain what 'handles initial messages' means or provide context for the workflow, leaving it incomplete.

  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 tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states it opens a weather website in Israel and handles initial messages, but 'handles initial messages' is vague. Given sibling tools, it is likely the first step in a workflow, but the purpose is not fully clear.

  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?

  No usage guidelines provided. The description only says 'Step 1', implying it's the first step, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it.

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

• enter_weather_forecast_city_israelC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description only states to enter a city name without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions. It fails to describe behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

  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 a single efficient sentence in Hebrew, front-loading the step number. It is concise but at the cost of informativeness.

  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 presence of sibling tools implying a multi-step workflow, the description lacks context about how this step fits into the larger task. It does not mention the weather forecast domain or the intended outcome.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds minimal context ('in the search field'). It does not explain format, constraints, or example values, so it barely compensates for the gap.

  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 'enter the city name' and references a search field, which matches the tool's name involving weather forecast. However, it does not explicitly connect to the weather context, relying on the name.

  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 includes 'Step 2', implying it follows 'open_weather_forecast_israel' and precedes 'select_weather_forecast_city_israel', providing sequential context but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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

• get_weather_page_contentB
  3.1/5.0
  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. It mentions 'retrieves and cleans' but does not disclose side effects, whether it makes external calls, or what 'cleaning' entails. Transparency is low.

  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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the step and purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but effective.

  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 no parameters and an output schema exists (so return values not needed), the description is minimal but functional. However, it lacks context about which page is being referred to and how it fits with sibling tools, so it is not fully complete.

  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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline score of 4 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 that the tool retrieves text from a page and cleans it for the LLM, indicating a specific action and resource. However, it does not specify which page or distinguish it from sibling tools, so it is not 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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions it is 'Step 4 (RAG)', but does not explain context or when not to use it.

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

• select_weather_forecast_city_israelB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action (select and navigate). It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, state changes, or whether it requires prior steps. The description is minimal and lacks depth for an unannotated 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 short sentence that directly states the tool's action. No redundant words, efficiently communicates purpose. It is appropriately sized for the simple no-parameter tool.

  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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description captures the essential action. However, it could benefit from noting that this is part of a multi-step workflow (as implied by 'Step 3') and what the detailed forecast page contains.

  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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information, but per rules, 0 parameters baseline is 4. No additional meaning needed.

  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 that the tool selects the first city from a list and navigates to the detailed forecast page, aligning with the tool name. It differentiates from siblings like 'enter_weather_forecast_city_israel' which implies manual entry, but lacks context on what list is being used.

  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 only says 'Step 3', implying a sequence but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enter_weather_forecast_city_israel' or 'get_weather_page_content'. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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