Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• kio_recentA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the basic behavioral profile. The description adds the time-window constraint (last N days) but does not disclose additional behaviors like sorting order, pagination, or return format beyond what annotations imply.

  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 unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff.

  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's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema present), the description adequately explains what the tool does. It is implicitly clear that it returns a list of decisions, though explicitly stating 'list of recent decisions' would improve completeness slightly. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'days' and 'limit' parameters having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves recent KIO decisions from the last N days, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on recency, whereas siblings deal with specific articles, individual decisions, PDFs, or general search.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., kio_search). The description lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• kio_get_orzeczenieA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'full decision' context but does not disclose other traits like error handling, rate limits, or return format. The description is consistent with annotations, adding minimal extra value.

  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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly improved by adding brief context about what a 'full decision' entails, but it is efficient and easy to parse.

  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's simplicity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the return structure), the description is adequate. It states the core action clearly, so the agent can infer the rest from the schema.

  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 tool description itself does not discuss parameters. However, the input schema's parameter description covers both string and integer types and explains the extra request needed for signatures. Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the tool description adds nothing beyond that.

  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 retrieves a full KIO decision (orzeczenie), matching the name. It distinguishes from sibling tools that search, get recent, or get PDF URLs, as it specifically retrieves the full decision by signature or ID.

  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 main description provides no usage context or when to use this versus alternatives. However, the parameter description hints that using a signature requires an extra search step, implying a workflow. This is implicit guidance but not explicit about when-not or alternatives.

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

• kio_searchA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds that pzp_article is a post-process filter, which provides context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like API dependency or pagination behavior beyond schema.

  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 concise sentences: first defines purpose, second adds key context about optional parameters and pzp_article filter. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.

  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 10 parameters, multiple siblings, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context on when to use siblings, result format, or additional constraints. Sufficient for basic use but incomplete for complex decision-making.

  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?

  Schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. Description adds that pzp_article is post-process (no server-side), which clarifies its behavior. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage; the added semantic value raises the score to 4.

  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?

  Description states 'Wyszukuje orzeczenia KIO w bazie orzeczenia.uzp.gov.pl', clearly specifying the action (search) and resource (KIO decisions). It distinguishes from siblings like kio_by_pzp_article, kio_recent, etc., by being the general search tool.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Only mentions that all parameters are optional and that pzp_article is a post-process filter. Does not explain when to choose this over specific siblings like kio_by_pzp_article.

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

• kio_get_pdf_urlA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns a URL rather than the content bytes, which is important behavioral context 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?

  Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds value: it states the action, resource, and key limitation (no bytes).

  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 tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, this description fully covers the essential details: what it returns (URL) and what it does not (bytes). No gaps.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% and includes a description. The tool description provides example formats for the parameter ('KIO 2924/21' or 15903), adding practical guidance beyond the schema's description.

  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?

  Description uses a specific verb ('Zwraca URL') and clearly identifies the resource ('PDF orzeczenia'). It also distinguishes itself by stating it does not download bytes, which differentiates from siblings like kio_get_orzeczenie.

  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 states that this tool returns a URL and does not download bytes, implicitly indicating when not to use it (if bytes are needed). However, no explicit alternative tool is named, but the context of sibling tools provides some guidance.

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

• kio_by_pzp_articleA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool uses a phrase search combined with a post-filter due to lack of server-side support, which adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. This helps the agent understand potential limitations.

  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 (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The warning about post-filtering is useful, though the formatting could be slightly more 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 100% schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and the behavioral detail provided (post-filtering), the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description adds value by providing concrete examples for the 'article' parameter (e.g., '226' or '224 ust. 1 pkt 1'), and the schema already has full coverage. The limit parameter is adequately described in 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 the tool retrieves KIO rulings citing a specific PZP article. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kio_search by focusing on article-based filtering.

  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 about the tool's purpose and the post-filtering limitation, implying use when article-specific results are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like kio_search.

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