Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_cookie_policyA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the external service (privacypage.io), the 25-line preview, the documentId return, and the one-time $9.99 license. However, it does not mention that user-provided data is sent to a third-party service or indicate any side effects or limitations.

  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 compact sentences deliver the core function first, then the return value and pricing model. No filler or repetition; every clause adds useful information.

  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?

  The description explains the immediate output (preview and documentId) but not how the documentId relates to the sibling get_full_document tool or how the license unlock is exercised. Given there is no output schema, slightly more workflow context would make the tool easier to invoke and hand off 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?

  The input schema already provides 100% parameter description coverage, including examples and common values for cookieTypes and thirdPartyServices. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a GDPR-aware cookie policy for a website or web app using privacypage.io.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling privacy policy, terms of service, EULA, and disclaimer generators by focusing on cookie policy generation.

  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 is for websites or web apps needing a cookie policy, which gives some context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this instead of generate_privacy_policy or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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

• get_full_documentA
  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 behavioral burden. It discloses the licensing requirement, the one-time purchase model, and the environment-variable fallback, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format or potential error conditions, leaving some uncertainty for the agent about what the call actually yields.

  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?

  Three sentences with the core action front-loaded. The licensing and fallback details are relevant, though the pricing specifics could be trimmed without losing essential usage guidance. Overall, it is compact and structured effectively.

  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 2-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the key need-to-know items: what is fetched, the license requirement, the environment fallback, and the documentId source. The absence of an output schema makes the missing return format a minor gap, but the term 'full text' plus the simple nature of the tool keeps it reasonably 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 pricing and purchase details but does not meaningfully expand on the semantics of documentId or licenseKey beyond what the schema already states. It reinforces the fallback behavior but adds little new parameter-level meaning.

  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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('the full text of a previously generated document'), and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling generate_* tools by focusing on retrieval of existing content. This is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

  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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving previously generated documents, implying it should be used after a generate_* tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are all generators, so the intended context is strongly implied.

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

• generate_privacy_policyA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses key traits: free 25-line preview, documentId, and one-time $9.99 license with no subscription. It also signals an external dependency on privacypage.io. This covers cost, output, and unlock mechanism, though it omits failure/rate-limit 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 purposeful sentences with the action first, then return/pricing info, then a guidance note. No redundant phrasing or padding.

  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?

  The description covers what the call returns (preview + documentId), the payment condition, and the source of field values. Given the rich schema and the absence of an output schema, this is nearly complete; it does not mention how documentId connects to get_full_document, but that can be inferred from the sibling tool.

  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 8 properties, including enums and examples. The description adds only a generic instruction to fill fields from known app context, which is useful but does not materially deepen parameter semantics 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?

  Description states a specific action ('Generate') and resource ('GDPR/CCPA/COPPA-aware privacy policy'), plus the service used (privacypage.io). This clearly differentiates from siblings like generate_terms_of_service or generate_cookie_policy, which target different legal documents.

  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?

  It implies use when the app/website needs a privacy policy and advises filling fields from known app details, but never names alternatives or says when not to use. The sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent must infer the decision from the tool name alone.

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

• generate_terms_of_serviceA
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that only a free 25-line preview is returned, that a documentId is generated, and that the full document requires a one-time $9.99 license with no subscription. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'generate' statement.

  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 with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the return behavior and pricing model. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

  Given the absence of an output schema, the description does well to explain the return values: a preview and a documentId. It also addresses the paid unlock model. It could be more complete by explicitly connecting the documentId to the get_full_document sibling tool, but the current information is largely sufficient for a correct call.

  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 even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The description does not restate or enhance the parameter definitions, but it does not need to because the schema thoroughly documents all six required fields.

  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 a specific verb ('Generate'), a precise resource ('Terms of Service agreement'), and the external service used ('privacypage.io'). It is distinct from sibling tools because it identifies the exact legal document type being generated.

  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 usage context is implied by the document type: an agent should call this when a Terms of Service is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over generate_eula, generate_privacy_policy, or other sibling tools, and no exclusions are stated.

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

• generate_disclaimerA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond a generic 'generates' statement by revealing that the result is a 25-line preview, that a documentId is returned, and that the full document is unlocked only via a one-time $9.99 license with no subscription. This is critical behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to call the tool and how to handle the incomplete output. It does not cover rate limits or data handling, but for a document generator the paywall mechanism is the key 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?

  The description is two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, the document types, and the target context (website/app and privacypage.io). The second sentence precisely states the output and the pricing model. Every clause earns its place.

  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 tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the essential output contract: a free 25-line preview, a documentId, and a paid unlock for the full document. The sibling get_full_document likely consumes the documentId, completing the workflow. It does not explain what the agent should do with the documentId or how to present the preview, but those are minor given the schema and sibling context. Missing details like authentication or rate limits are not critical for a non-destructive generation tool.

  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?

  The input schema already includes descriptions for all 5 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific explanation; it merely lists the disclaimer types that are already captured in the enum. It does not say which fields are required or how values should be formatted, but the schema already covers that ground.

  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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and a precise resource ('a liability disclaimer') with the six allowed types explicitly named. It also differentiates the tool from its sibling generators (privacy policy, terms, EULA, cookie policy) by identifying both the document type and the privacypage.io service. An agent can clearly tell what this tool produces and how it differs from the siblings.

  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 clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly say 'use this when...' or name the alternatives as exclusions. Still, the document-type scoping and the sibling list make the intended use case unambiguous: generate a disclaimer when that is the needed legal document. There is no explicit when-not guidance, preventing a 5.

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

• generate_eulaA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well: it reveals the non-obvious gating behavior — returns only a 25-line preview and a documentId, with full access unlocked via a one-time $9.99 license. This prevents the false assumption that the tool returns the complete agreement.

  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?

  One efficient sentence presents the purpose, the provider, and the key output/pricing behavior. Every part contributes to an agent's ability to use the tool correctly, and the core action is front-loaded.

  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?

  The description is complete for a tool of moderate complexity: it states what it generates, what it returns, and the critical paid-unlock constraint. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the preview and documentId covers the return contract sufficiently.

  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 input schema already documents all five required parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to; the schema handles the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an End-User License Agreement (EULA) for a software application using privacypage.io.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling policy generators and states exactly what the tool produces.

  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 gives a clear usage context — use this when you need a EULA for a software application on a given platform. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the legal-document type is unambiguous enough for routing.

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