Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_expenseB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only restates the purpose ('add') and adds a persistence detail ('to the database'). It does not mention what happens on success/failure, whether entries are validated, or any side effects, leaving the behavioral burden unmet.

  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, making it very concise. It gets straight to the point without wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite the tool having five parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides only a high-level purpose. It lacks essential information about parameter formats, required semantics, and return values, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema lists five parameters with no types or descriptions, and the description gives zero details about them. There is no compensation for the 0% schema description coverage, so the agent has no idea what values are expected for date, amount, category, etc.

  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 the specific verb 'Add' with the resource 'expense entry' and indicates persistence to the database. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools list_expenses and summarize.

  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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the name and purpose imply it is for creating new expense records, while siblings handle listing and summarizing. This is implied usage, not stated.

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

• summarizeB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds 'inclusive date range' and grouping 'by category,' but fails to explain what the summary contains (sums, counts, etc.), how the optional category parameter behaves (filter vs. group), the return format, or handling of empty results. These are substantial gaps for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

  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, efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. It is concise without being short enough to lose clarity on the core purpose.

  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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'summarize' outputs (e.g., per-category totals, counts), whether the category parameter filters or groups, or how to interpret the date range. Without these details, an agent cannot reliably predict the tool's behavior or invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It mentions 'date range' and 'category,' but does not explain date formats, whether category is optional or filters/grouping behavior, or provide any parameter-specific details beyond what the raw schema shows. The description adds minimal semantic value over 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?

  The description clearly states 'Summarize expenses by category within an inclusive date range.' It uses a specific verb ('summarize'), resource ('expenses'), and distinguishes from siblings by indicating aggregation rather than adding or listing individual expenses.

  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 aggregate views of expenses by category and date, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_expenses or exclude cases. There is no mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving usage context only implied.

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

• list_expensesA
  3.6/5.0
  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. It only discloses the inclusive boundary behavior but omits details like output format, ordering, pagination, side effects, or error conditions. The 'inclusive' detail is useful but insufficient for full 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 a single, focused sentence of seven words. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy or filler.

  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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description provides the core function plus the inclusive boundary. However, it lacks details about the return value, ordering, or behavior when no entries match, making it minimally adequate but with gaps.

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

  Parameters2/5

  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 compensate. It implies start_date and end_date define the range, but gives no type, format, or relationship details. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

  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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'expense entries' and scopes it to an inclusive date range. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools 'add_expense' (adding) and 'summarize' (aggregating).

  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 'inclusive date range' provides clear context for when this tool is used (retrieving entries between dates). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the intended use obvious.

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