Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• patsnap_searchA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world semantics. The description adds a behavioral constraint: 'Search one corpus per call' and hints at preserving returned URLs for a follow-up tool. No contradictions with annotations. The added detail is valuable but not extensive.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and under 50 words. Every sentence adds value—purpose, corpus constraint, and integration with the sibling tool. No fluff.

  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 the complexity (8 parameters, 1 nested object, no output schema), the description covers core functionality and a key constraint but omits details about the return format or structure. The instruction to 'preserve returned record URLs' hints at the output but does not explain what the response contains. For a search tool, this is adequate but not 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description uses terms like 'semantic concepts, BM25 keywords, and multidimensional filters' that map to parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No new insight into parameter usage is provided.

  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 purpose: searching PatSnap's global patent or scientific literature database using semantic concepts, BM25 keywords, and filters. It explicitly mentions the ability to search one corpus per call and distinguishes from the sibling tool patsnap_fetch by instructing to preserve returned URLs for subsequent fetching.

  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 guidance on when to use the tool: for initial searches, and instructs to preserve record URLs for the sibling patsnap_fetch. It mentions searching one corpus per call, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe alternatives beyond the sibling, but the context is clear enough.

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

• patsnap_fetchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds value by detailing potential output contents (bibliographic data, claims, etc.) and explaining compression behavior.

  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 conveying core functionality and key output details without redundancy.

  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 no output schema, the description covers what the Markdown may contain and module options. Could be more complete about return format structure, but adequate for a fetch tool.

  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%, but description adds contextual meaning beyond schema, such as explaining which modules apply to patents vs. papers and the purpose of compression.

  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 tool retrieves Markdown for PatSnap patent/literature records using result URLs or publication numbers, distinguishing it from the sibling tool patsnap_search which presumably searches.

  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?

  Implicitly guides use when you have specific URLs or publication numbers, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison with the search sibling.

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