Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_dur_interactionB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and description only states the tool checks safety rules. Does not disclose behavior for invalid inputs, error handling, or any limitations.

  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?

  Description is concise with two short sentences, but the Korean and English versions are redundant. Front-loads the purpose.

  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?

  For a simple query tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but does not mention return format or response behavior.

  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 tool description adds no additional semantic 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 clearly states the tool checks Korean DUR safety rules between two drugs, specifying contraindications and age restrictions. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on drug info and search.

  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 vs siblings. Does not mention scenarios or prerequisites for use.

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

• get_drug_easy_infoA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool retrieves information (read-only implied) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, data source scope, or what happens on missing or invalid input. The description is insufficient for a mutation-free query tool.

  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 concise sentences (one Korean, one English) that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and content. No wasted words or redundancy. The description is front-loaded and easy to parse.

  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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (purpose, dosage, side effects, warnings). It does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure), error handling, or edge cases, but for a simple lookup tool, the information is largely 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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (drug_name) described as '약품명'. The description adds that the drug name should be in Korean and that the information is patient-friendly, but does not provide additional semantics like expected format, supported languages, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter.

  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 it queries patient-friendly Korean drug information and lists specific content categories (purpose, dosage, side effects, warnings). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_dur_interaction (drug interactions) and search_drug (general search) by focusing on easy-to-understand patient info.

  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 the tool should be used when seeking simplified patient drug information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_drug or check_dur_interaction. Sibling names provide some context but no direct guidance.

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

• search_drugA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields and mentions partial match support, but lacks details on auth needs, rate limits, or behavior for no results. Adequate but not rich.

  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: two sentences conveying purpose, searchable fields, and return fields. Front-loaded with the main action and no extraneous information.

  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?

  For a simple search tool with 2 parameters, the description and schema together cover the essential aspects (parameters, return fields). No output schema but return fields are listed. Lacks details on error handling or pagination, but acceptable for this complexity.

  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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing what can be searched (product name, ingredient, manufacturer), extending the understanding of the 'name' parameter beyond the schema's description.

  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 searches a Korean drug master and lists searchable fields (product name, ingredient, manufacturer) and return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like search_supplement and check_dur_interaction by specifying the domain.

  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 drug searches but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or compare to alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

• search_supplementA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool does a search (read operation) and specifies search fields, but does not mention pagination, result format, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks depth.

  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 (Korean and English), directly stating purpose and search criteria. No unnecessary words, and the information is front-loaded.

  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 tool has no output schema and no required parameters, the description should at least indicate what is returned (e.g., list of registrations, details). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format. However, for a simple search, it is moderately complete.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by providing an example ingredient list ('코엔자임Q10, 비타민D'), which helps the agent understand valid values beyond the schema description.

  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 searches Korean functional health food registrations by ingredient or product name. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('건강기능식품 인허가 정보'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on drug-related information.

  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 when needing to find health food registrations, and specifies search criteria (ingredient or product name). While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the sibling tools are clearly different domains, so the usage context is clear.

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