Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hu_get_actA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional context (e.g., return format, auth, rate limits) but is fully consistent with the annotations, earning a neutral score.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and identifier format.

  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 simple tool complexity, full input schema, output schema presence, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It states the purpose clearly and does not need to explain return values or safety, as those are covered by other structured fields.

  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 the year and serial parameters. The description's mention of ELI provides a small clarifying connection but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics.

  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 states a specific verb+resource+identifier: 'Fetch metadata for a Hungarian Act (torveny) by its ELI (year + serial)'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like hu_get_text by focusing on metadata rather than content.

  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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hu_get_text or hu_get_legislation. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving usage only implied.

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

• hu_get_legislationA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns metadata and notes case-sensitivity of issuer codes, but does not add context like rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. It is consistent with annotations and provides some added detail.

  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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by usage guidance. No word is wasted; it is efficient and well-structured.

  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 and annotations are rich, the description adequately explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how to find valid parameter values. It is complete for a simple read-only metadata fetch tool.

  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 each parameter having descriptions and examples. The description adds the conceptual ELI composition ('type + year + issuer + serial') which helps, but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

  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 'Fetch metadata for any Hungarian legislation by its ELI (type + year + issuer + serial)', using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly excluding Acts, which distinguishes it from hu_get_act.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use this for anything other than Acts' and directs users to hu_list_doc_types and hu_list_issuers for valid codes. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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

• hu_list_doc_typesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the source endpoint and the return structure (DocTypeList with items of code+name), which goes beyond 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 compact and front-loaded with the core function, followed by a clear return specification. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or fluff.

  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 parameterless list tool, the description fully covers what it does, where it gets data, and what it returns. The provided output schema and examples complete the picture, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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 takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly notes that no parameters are needed, so there is no gap to fill; the baseline of 4 applies.

  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 lists valid NJT document-type codes, with examples (TV=Act, R=decree) and the source endpoint /eli/tipuskodok. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like hu_get_text or hu_list_issuers.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the tool's purpose: it is a list operation that provides codes for use with other tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention that it might be a prerequisite for fetch operations.

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

• hu_list_issuersA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting case-sensitivity, providing an example, and specifying the return format (IssuerList with items). This goes beyond 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 extremely concise—two sentences, with the main action in the first sentence and return details in the second. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is fully complete. It states what the tool returns and even includes the source path, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

  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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't; the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to clarify.

  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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'List valid NJT issuer codes'. It also provides a concrete example and source path, making it distinct from sibling tools like hu_get_text or hu_list_doc_types.

  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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to retrieve issuer codes), and no exclusions or alternatives are needed since the tool is simple and self-contained. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes the usage obvious.

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

• hu_get_textA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing that the output is HTML content, that issuer codes are case-sensitive, and that the tool behaves differently for Acts vs. other document types, which enriches the behavioral understanding.

  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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the main purpose, followed by a focused usage note. Every word contributes, with no repetition or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 read-only annotations, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the essential use cases. It explains the key distinction between Acts and other documents, which is the main contextual complexity, and doesn't leave obvious gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

  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 all four parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description elevates this by explaining the relationship between doc_type and issuer (omit issuer for TV, require issuer otherwise) and providing concrete examples like 'TV' and 'R'. This goes beyond mere parameter listing.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the full document HTML content of a Hungarian piece of legislation.' This clearly states the tool's function, and the subsequent guidance about Acts vs. other types differentiates it from sibling tools like hu_get_act or hu_get_legislation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly tells when to pass doc_type="TV" and omit issuer, and when to pass the issuer code, even directing users to hu_list_issuers for valid codes. This provides concrete conditions for use and points to a sibling tool, making usage guidance clear.

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