Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• micar_register_changesC
  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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any rate limits or side effects. The brief description only implies a query-like operation.

  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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

  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 simplicity (two optional parameters, output schema present), the description is minimal but somewhat adequate. It explains the core purpose and one parameter, but lacks details on the limit parameter and usage context. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is mediocre.

  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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It describes change_type with allowed values 'all | added | changed | removed', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the limit parameter is not explained at all, making the description only partially helpful.

  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 shows 'Recent register movement: new filings, changed entries, removals.' It indicates the tool retrieves recent changes, which is specific and differentiates from summary or search tools in the sibling list, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

  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 versus alternatives such as micar_register_summary or search_micar_register. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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

• search_micar_registerA
  3.7/5.0
  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. While it describes what the tool does, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The return format is also not mentioned.

  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 very concise, with a single clear sentence for the purpose and three short lines for parameter details. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

  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 lacks information about the output, despite an output schema existing. It also does not explain the register_slug codes (e.g., what 'other-wp' means). Given the tool's moderate complexity, more context would be beneficial.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that query is a case-insensitive substring or exact LEI, register_slug lists possible values, and member_state is a two-letter code. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though defaults are not mentioned.

  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 the ESMA interim MiCAR register by entity name or LEI. It distinguishes from sibling tools like micar_register_changes and micar_register_summary, which have different purposes.

  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 searching the register but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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

• micar_register_summaryA
  3.8/5.0
  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 output is 'current totals' and 'coverage', which is adequate for a simple read-only tool. However, it does not disclose update frequency, data sources, or any potential 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?

  The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It packs the essential information efficiently, making it 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, single output) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It lacks detail about what 'totals' and 'coverage' entail, but the output schema presumably fills those 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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Thus, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It implicitly communicates that no input is required, which is sufficient.

  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 provides 'current totals per MiCAR register and white paper format coverage'. It uses a specific resource (MiCAR register) and implies a verb (returns/provides). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_micar_register' or 'lint_micar_whitepaper' which have different purposes.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection. The agent must infer usage 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.

• lint_micar_whitepaperA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that results are pending human review and that the tool degrades gracefully when the dependency is absent. However, it does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or output format specifics beyond mentioning 'cited candidate findings'.

  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 that deliver purpose, key constraints, and behavioral notes without excess. Front-loaded with the primary action.

  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 there is an output schema (not shown), the description adequately hints at return type. It covers main functionality and a dependency caveat. However, it could mention error cases or what 'install hint' entails.

  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 only parameter, 'whitepaper_json', has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by clarifying it is the 'draft MiCAR white paper (JSON)', adding semantic meaning about the expected input format and content.

  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 'lint' and identifies the resource as a 'draft MiCAR white paper (JSON)' against specific rules (Annex I-III). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify_eu_ai_act_system or search_micar_register.

  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 states the tool returns 'candidate findings pending human review' and mentions a required optional dependency (lint extra), giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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

• classify_eu_ai_act_systemA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description reveals key behavior: the tool requires an optional extra and degrades to an install hint if missing. Also states it provides 'pinpoint citations'. Does not explain error handling for invalid input, but covers main behavioral aspects.

  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?

  Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence 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 the tool's single parameter and presence of output schema, the description covers necessary context: both usage modes and installation requirement. No missing critical details.

  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 has one parameter with 0% descriptive coverage; description fully compensates by explaining that empty string retrieves schema and non-empty JSON classifies. Adds clear semantics beyond raw type definition.

  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 classifies an AI system's EU AI Act risk tier, with specific verb ('Classify') and resource ('EU AI Act risk tier'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on MiCAR regulation.

  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?

  Describes when to use (passing a SystemProfile JSON) and an alternative mode (empty string for schema). Mentions dependency on optional extra. No explicit exclusion of when not to use, but context is clear.

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