Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• nl_get_textA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the return format (XML) and date filtering, but does not disclose potential pagination or size limits. No contradictions.

  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 sentence with no redundancy. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and constraints.

  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 rich annotations, output schema presence, and simple parameters, the description provides sufficient context for correct use without missing critical details.

  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 clear parameter descriptions (bwb_id example, on_date format and default). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 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 it fetches the full consolidated XML of a Dutch act, specifying scope (in force on a date) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like nl_get_act which may return different formats.

  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 versus alternatives such as nl_get_act or nl_search. The description implies usage for fetching XML data but does not exclude other use cases.

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

• nl_searchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making safety and idempotency clear. The description adds the detail that results are acts 'in force on a date', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering). It does not contradict 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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and constraints. Every word is necessary, and no information is redundant. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 low parameter count (2), full schema coverage, and presence of output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently outlines the tool's behavior. It specifies the search target (title words) and temporal condition (in force on a date). It does not detail output format, but that is covered by the output schema. Minor missing context like result ordering or error cases, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

  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. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it reiterates that query is 'words in the act title' and on_date is 'optional YYYY-MM-DD defaults to today'. This does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 explicitly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Dutch consolidated acts', and the scope 'by words in the title, in force on a date'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like nl_case_search (cases) and nl_get_act (retrieve specific act).

  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 implies usage for finding acts by title words with a date constraint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nl_get_act for a known act) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• nl_get_decisionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds source context (Rechtspraak Open Data) but no additional behavioral details like error handling or rate limits.

  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 sentence, 13 words, zero wasted information. Front-loaded with purpose and key identifier.

  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 single-parameter fetch tool with output schema and thorough annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and source. No missing critical information.

  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%. The description adds an example for the ecli parameter, but the schema already includes a similar example. No additional semantics beyond what schema provides.

  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 clearly states the action (Fetch), resource (Dutch court decision), and method (by its ECLI). It distinguishes from siblings like nl_case_search by specifying the exact identifier.

  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?

  Implied usage: use when you have a known ECLI. However, no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or alternative tools (e.g., use nl_case_search if you don't have an ECLI).

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

• nl_get_actA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not add behavioral details beyond stating it fetches metadata, which is consistent 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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

  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?

  With comprehensive annotations and an existing output schema, the description is adequate for a simple metadata fetch tool. It could explicitly state that it only returns metadata, but that is implied.

  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 already present in the input schema. The description merely repeats these (e.g., example for bwb_id and default for on_date), adding no new meaning beyond 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 it fetches metadata for a version of a Dutch act in force on a date, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that deal with cases, decisions, text, or search.

  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 context is clear: this tool is for fetching metadata of Dutch acts. While no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, the sibling tool names alone allow inference of differentiation.

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

• nl_case_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds a key behavioral constraint: no free-text query. This goes beyond annotations and provides valuable transparency, though it could mention more about pagination or result limits.

  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 concise with three sentences: purpose, limitation and filter options, and next step. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

  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 5 optional parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the data source, the filtering workflow, the no-text limitation, and the recommended follow-up tool. It is sufficiently complete for someone 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that creator and subject are authority URIs and that date_from/date_to form a range. It also suggests the follow-up fetch, enhancing understanding of parameter usage.

  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 tool lists Dutch court decisions by metadata filters, specifying the data source (Rechtspraak Open Data). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning nl_get_decision for fetching, but does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools.

  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 there is no free-text query and recommends filtering by date range with optional authority URIs, then fetching a decision with nl_get_decision. This provides clear usage context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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