Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• who-healthC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Provides access to comprehensive health data' and mentions OData API usage, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether it's read-only or mutative, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response formats. For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the unified purpose and key features. Both sentences earn their place by explaining the tool's scope and technical approach. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the OData mentions more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. While it covers the purpose and data scope, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

  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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'OData query syntax' and examples of data topics, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

  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's purpose: 'access health indicators, country statistics, and regional data via the modern OData API' and specifies it's for WHO Global Health Observatory operations. It distinguishes the scope ('comprehensive health data from the World Health Organization') and examples of topics covered. However, with no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so it's not a 5.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It mentions 'via the modern OData API' and 'using standard OData query syntax,' which gives some technical context, but lacks explicit usage scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to other methods. This leaves the agent with minimal direction on appropriate application.

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