Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ro_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, covering safety. The description adds the disambiguation behavior but little else; 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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the only nuance (disambiguation). No wasted words.

  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 a rich output schema, comprehensive annotations, and only two siblings, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could have benefited from a brief mention of when not to use it, but the overall context is adequate.

  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 baseline is 3. The description restates the relationship between number, year, and tip_act, but adds no new format or syntax details beyond what the schema already 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?

  The description 'Fetch Romanian act metadata by number + year' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying what the tool does. The mention of tip_act for disambiguation further distinguishes it from sibling tools like ro_search and ro_get_text.

  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 implies the tool should be used when the act number and year are known, with tip_act available for disambiguation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for a lookup tool.

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

• ro_get_textA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar for additional disclosure. The description adds meaningful context: it returns the *full* text and highlights the need for disambiguation when number+year may be ambiguous, which is beyond what the annotations provide.

  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 that conveys the essential purpose and a key usage nuance. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant elaboration.

  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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequate for correct selection and invocation. It covers the core purpose and disambiguation logic, though it omits explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, which is partially covered in the usage dimension.

  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 each parameter (year, number, tip_act) already documented. The description minimally restates the schema ('by number + year (disambiguate with tip_act)') without adding new semantic meaning, 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 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: the full Romanian text of an act, identified by number and year. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ro_search (search-oriented) and ro_get_act (likely retrieving act metadata) by focusing on full-text retrieval.

  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 when to use this tool (when full text is needed) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives. It does mention the disambiguation parameter 'tip_act', which is a usage guideline, but no explicit when/to/not-to guidance relative to siblings is provided.

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

• ro_searchA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral requirement of needing at least one search parameter, which is valuable. However, it lacks deeper context like pagination, ordering, or error behavior beyond what the schema already provides. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

  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—concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and the constraint is clearly stated.

  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 5-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and a presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the action, the resource, and the key usage constraint. The schema and annotations cover the remaining details, so no critical information is missing.

  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 100% description coverage with rich details for each parameter (e.g., year's 'publication/in-force year, e.g. 2018'). The description adds the cross-parameter constraint that at least one of title/text/year/number must be provided, which is not otherwise specified. This adds meaningful semantic context 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 the tool's function: 'Search Romanian legislation.' It uses a specific verb (Search) and resource (Romanian legislation), and the constraint 'Provide at least one of title/text/year/number' distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific acts or texts.

  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: it is for searching legislation and requires at least one of four search criteria. It does not explicitly compare with siblings ro_get_act and ro_get_text, but the constraint implies when it is applicable. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so it falls just short of a 5.

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