Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_demand_letterA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It mentions that the PDF is returned as a base64 resource and that it is 'localized and legally formatted', but it does not disclose whether the tool modifies any state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or error handling. The nature of document generation is implicitly safe, but the description is minimal.

  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, clearly front-loading the primary output. Every sentence provides useful information: the first states what is generated, the second states the return format and pricing/registration status. No unnecessary words.

  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 (23 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It fails to explain the return structure beyond base64, does not mention the bank object nesting, and does not link to sibling tools for previewing or listing jurisdictions. An agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly.

  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?

  All 23 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds only marginal value (e.g., mentioning localization). The description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 states 'Generate the finished demand-letter PDF (formal letter + matching envelope)', which is a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('demand-letter PDF'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like preview_demand_letter by emphasizing 'finished' and 'matching envelope'.

  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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings (preview_demand_letter, list_jurisdictions). It only mentions 'Free, no registration' which is not usage guidance. There is no mention of prerequisites such as first listing jurisdictions or previewing.

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

• preview_demand_letterA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool renders text as JSON and does not produce a PDF, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent.

  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, front-loading the core action and output format, then stating the use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

  Despite the tool's complexity (23 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is concise. However, it lacks detail on the return structure beyond listing a few components. Since there is no output schema, the description should more fully explain the JSON output format to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about output structure (title, subject, body, etc.) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, no additional value for parameter 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?

  The description clearly states the tool renders the demand letter's text content as structured JSON without producing a PDF, specifying the output components. It distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_demand_letter by noting it's for previewing before generating.

  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 explicitly says 'Use to review or refine wording before generating,' providing clear context and implying the tool is for preview before final PDF generation. It distinguishes from generate_demand_letter which produces the PDF, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

• list_jurisdictionsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists data (read-only) and specifies what fields are returned. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but given the simplicity and lack of parameters, this is sufficient.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value.

  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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (code, name, currency, default language, languages, tones). It also provides context that this is a first-step call. The tool is simple, and the description covers all needed information.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none to explain.

  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 lists every supported country/jurisdiction with specific attributes (code, name, currency, default language) plus available languages and tones. It clearly distinguishes from siblings which generate/preview letters by stating it should be called first.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit guidance: 'Call this first to pick a valid jurisdiction + language.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the sibling tools for generating/previewing demand letters.

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