Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query.semanticC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions governance validation, which hints at potential restrictions or errors, but lacks details on execution behavior (e.g., performance, rate limits, error handling, or output format). For a complex query tool with 8 parameters, this is a significant gap in 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key behavioral note (governance validation). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

  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 (8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the query returns, how results are structured, error conditions, or governance specifics. For a data query tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and use it effectively.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage context for parameters like measures or dimensions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('execute a governed semantic query') and target ('against the data warehouse'), with the verb 'execute' being specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like catalog.describe or catalog.search, which likely serve different purposes (e.g., metadata exploration vs. data querying).

  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?

  The description mentions that 'queries are validated against governance policies before execution,' which implies a context of compliance or security. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like catalog.describe or catalog.search, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

• catalog.describeB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies it is likely non-destructive, but does not address other traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the member does not exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly. However, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding minor redundancy (e.g., 'detailed information' might imply 'definition, type, and related members').

  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 complexity of retrieving detailed member information, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain critical aspects such as the format of returned information, potential errors, or any limitations. The description alone does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'member' documented as 'Full member name (e.g., "Orders.count")'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific member'), and specifies what information is retrieved ('definition, type, and related members'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like catalog.search, which might also retrieve member information but with different scope or filtering.

  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 when detailed information about a specific member is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like catalog.search or query.semantic. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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

• catalog.searchB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the tool is for 'searching' and 'discovery,' which suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't detail behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what happens on errors. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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?

  The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. There's no unnecessary information or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines, but it's efficient overall.

  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's complexity (a search function with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and sibling tool differentiation. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in providing full context for effective tool use.

  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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (query, types, cubes, limit) with details like default values and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the data catalog for available measures, dimensions, and segments.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('data catalog'), and mentions the target objects. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'catalog.describe' or 'query.semantic', which prevents a score of 5.

  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 provides some usage context: 'Use this to discover what data is available for querying.' This implies when to use the tool (for discovery), but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'catalog.describe' or 'query.semantic', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.

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