Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_patient_recordA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Adds error behavior (raises error if patient doesn't exist or DB down, never returns empty success) beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). Provides useful safety context.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Efficiently communicates what it does and key behavioral note.

  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 lookup tool with annotations and output schema, the description adds specific fields returned and error handling. Adequate for the complexity.

  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 a clear description including a demo value. Description adds no further parameter detail beyond 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?

  Clearly states 'Look up a patient by id' and lists specific fields returned. Distinct from siblings: search_clinic_docs, list_appointments, create_appointment are different resources/actions.

  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 usage for retrieving patient info by ID, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Does not mention alternatives despite sibling list being available.

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

• list_appointmentsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive tool. The description adds behavioral insight by clarifying that an empty list is distinct from a database error, which helps the agent interpret results correctly.

  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 front-load the core purpose and critical constraint. Every sentence adds value with no 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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the behavior for edge cases (empty vs error). Parameter definitions are fully covered in the schema, and sibling tools are provided for context.

  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 both parameters (inclusive range, clinic calendar). The description adds the constraint that date_to must be on or after date_from, but this is a minor addition beyond the schema definitions.

  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 lists confirmed appointments within a date range, with inclusive boundaries. Distinguishes from siblings like search_clinic_docs and get_patient_record by focusing on appointment listing.

  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?

  Explicitly describes the scenario for use (listing confirmed appointments by date) and specifies that an empty list with status=ok indicates no appointments. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide explicit alternatives.

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

• search_clinic_docsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: the similarity floor gate and the explicit instruction to not fabricate answers from weak matches. This goes beyond the annotation metadata.

  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 paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and method. The second paragraph details return behavior and constraints. No extraneous information.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema (as indicated by context signals), so return values are already documented. The description sufficiently covers the search behavior, the relevance gate, and the instruction against fabrication. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

  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% for both parameters (query and top_k). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 performs a 'hybrid-search' of the 'clinic knowledge base' with specific methods (pgvector + full-text, RRF-fused). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_patient_record, list_appointments, and create_appointment, which deal with patient data and scheduling.

  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 explains that the tool returns cited chunks only when a similarity floor is met, and otherwise returns status=no_relevant_sources with an empty chunk list. It advises not to fabricate answers from weak matches. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• create_appointmentA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it inserts a row with status=pending, returns pending_approval, requires human approval, and never silently books. No contradiction with 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 very concise, uses a short paragraph with a clear first sentence, and each sentence adds unique value. No unnecessary words.

  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 tool's complexity (3 required parameters, approval workflow), the description covers the behavior, return value, side effects, and constraints. The output schema is implied, and the description is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

  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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add further semantics for the parameters, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'propose' and resource 'appointment', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_appointments which show confirmed ones. It states what it does (inserts a pending request) and what it does not do (confirm).

  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 explicitly says when to use it (to propose an appointment requiring approval) and notes that calling it twice creates two pending requests. It implies not for confirmed appointments but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like list_appointments for checking confirmed ones.

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