Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_next_availableA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the null return behavior but omits crucial information about location-based filtering (latitude, longitude, radius_km), which are part of the parameters and affect the search. This is a notable gap.

  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, well-structured sentence that frontloads the core behavior. Every word is informative; no fluff or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite having an output schema, the description fails to mention the location parameters that significantly affect the tool's behavior. For a tool with 7 parameters and location filtering, this omission leaves the description incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 57%, with latitude, longitude, and radius_km lacking descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or their role (location proximity). It only implicitly covers date, days, and time. Thus, it adds little value 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 precisely states the tool finds the first day within a window that has a free, qualified staff member at a given time, including the null case. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_availability by specifying 'first' and 'within days'.

  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 the earliest available date matching criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_availability for broader searches). No exclusion criteria or context are provided.

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

• daily_scheduleA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds that it returns only booked appointments for a specific date, which clarifies the scope. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, timezone handling, or whether cancelled appointments are included. With strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

  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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core functionality and earns its place by being direct and efficient.

  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 required parameter, read-only, with output schema available), the description is nearly complete. It could potentially mention the coverage of appointments (e.g., all staff, all clients) but the output schema likely fills that gap. The description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose.

  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 a clear ISO date format. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

  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 returns all appointments booked on a given date. It implicitly indicates a read operation and distinguishes from siblings like find_next_available (which finds open slots) and search_availability (which checks availability). This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear differentiation.

  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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description simply states the tool's function without any contextual usage advice.

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

• list_staffA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. Description adds 'active' filter, which is useful but minimal additional behavioral 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?

  Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loads the core action.

  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?

  Simple tool with one optional param and output schema; description is sufficient for basic understanding. Could optionally mention pagination or scope of 'active'.

  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?

  Only parameter 'skill' has schema description 'Filter by skill'. The description merely restates this, adding no new 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?

  Clearly states it lists active staff with optional skill filtering. Distinct from sibling tools like daily_schedule or find_next_available.

  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?

  Mentions optional skill filtering but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings or when not to use it.

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

• search_availabilityA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the description carries a lower burden. The description adds value by explaining the three-part filter (skill, free time, geo range), which aligns with agent expectations. 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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core functionality, and the second efficiently provides context about the booking engine.

  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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the filtering logic completely for a search tool. The only minor gap is omitting what happens with no results, 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description ties parameters together conceptually ('do the service'=service, 'free at the slot'=date/time, 'within range'=lat/lon/radius) but adds no detailed parameter-level guidance 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 explicitly states the tool finds staff who can perform the service, are free at the specified slot, and optionally within a geographic range. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_staff' and 'find_next_available' by mentioning it uses the same filter as the booking engine.

  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 usage context by stating it matches the booking engine's filter logic, suggesting it's appropriate when checking availability for a specific service/time/location. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'find_next_available' for next-slot searches.

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

• get_clientA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about default PII masking and authorization requirements for unmasking, which goes beyond the structured 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?

  Two sentences: first states the purpose, second details behavioral constraints. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

  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 presence of output schema, the description adequately covers the return data (contacts and saved preferences) and the masking behavior. For a single-parameter, well-annotated tool, this is complete.

  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?

  Input schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'email' already described. The description does not add any semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema 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 clearly states 'Look up a client by email with their contacts and saved preferences.' This uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('client by email'), and is distinct from sibling tools like 'daily_schedule' or 'search_availability.'

  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 provides guidance on the masking behavior ('set false only for internal/admin tooling') but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling comparison is made.

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