Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_recent_updatesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 the return structure (uri, source_url, change_type) and the behavior of the 'since' parameter (default window). It does not mention rate limits or auth, but these are typical for read tools.

  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?

  Well-structured with intro, usage scenarios, and parameter list. Reasonably concise, though the usage list could be slightly more compact. Overall effective.

  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 output schema exists, return value details are not needed. Covers purpose, usage, parameters. Missing details like pagination or rate limits, but still adequate.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully: explains 'since' as ISO date lower bound with example, and 'jurisdiction' as optional scope with example. Adds meaning beyond the bare 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 lists 'regulations added or amended recently' and calls it a 'regulatory change feed'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_regulations by focusing on recent changes rather than general search.

  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?

  Provides explicit use cases such as 'what's new in [jurisdiction] compliance' and 'incremental sync of a downstream cache'. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context implies alternatives exist (e.g., search_regulations for broader queries).

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

• check_complianceA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it is not legal advice, explains the output includes risk level, penalties, obligations, and source regulations. Slightly abstract but adequate.

  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?

  Concise, well-structured with paragraphs for output, disclaimer, and args. No wasted words. Information is front-loaded with purpose and output.

  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 output schema exists (per context signals), description needn't detail return format. It covers regulatory context, use case, and parameter details. Complete for a compliance-check tool.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, description adds significant value: lists examples for country (e.g., 'AU', 'US') and enumerates valid activity values. Both parameters are clearly explained beyond schema types.

  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 checks regulatory status of an activity in a country. It lists possible return values and includes examples, differentiating it from siblings like list_jurisdictions or search_regulations.

  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?

  Provides explicit context for when to use (checking compliance status) but lacks explicit when-not to use or direct alternatives among siblings. However, the description still gives enough guidance for appropriate use.

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

• get_regulationA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains the return content (complete regulation document with many fields) and ID examples. Could explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but current detail is sufficient for a retrieval tool.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, returns, parameter). Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

  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 tool has one required parameter, an output schema exists, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It lists key return fields and properly integrates with sibling tool usage (search_regulations). No gaps.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates by explaining the regulation_id parameter: integer type, examples (e.g., 123 = GDPR), required flag, and context that IDs come from search_regulations. Adds significant meaning beyond 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?

  Description clearly states the tool retrieves the full record for a single regulation by integer ID, listing specific return fields (obligations, penalties, scope, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly relating to search_regulations for ID discovery.

  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?

  Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: when user asks for obligations, penalties, scope, or article-level detail of a named regulation. Also advises to use search_regulations first to find IDs, effectively telling when not to use this tool.

  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 provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the endpoint does not consume API credits and implies harmless read-only behavior. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or potential rate limits, which would improve transparency.

  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, with two focused sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

  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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral note (no API credits). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it without gaps.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameters. According to rules, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not miss any opportunity to add parameter-related value.

  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 action ('List') and the resource ('all regulatory jurisdictions'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_regulations and check_compliance by highlighting its role in providing canonical codes and regulation counts.

  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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('discover the universe of supported regions and canonical jurisdiction codes') and how to use the output with other tools ('pass to other tools like search_regulations or check_compliance'), making context and alternatives clear.

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

• search_regulationsA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a paginated list, includes specific fields (title, jurisdiction, etc.), and mentions pagination parameters. However, with no annotations provided, it does not address authentication requirements or rate limits, which would complete the picture.

  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 and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, followed by a paragraph on usage, return information, a follow-up tip, and a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 complexity (6 optional parameters, output schema exists, multiple siblings), the description covers purpose, usage context, return structure, follow-up action, and parameter details. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all six parameters with examples and optionality (e.g., 'jurisdiction: ISO-style jurisdiction code, e.g. "EU", "US"... Optional.'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema's type/null/default information.

  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 'Search the RegIntel database of global regulatory and compliance rules,' specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_regulation (which retrieves a specific regulation) and list_jurisdictions (which lists supported jurisdictions).

  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: 'Use this tool when the user asks about regulatory obligations, compliance requirements, legal changes...' and instructs to follow up with get_regulation for full details. It also lists example jurisdictions and use cases, making it easy to decide when to invoke.

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