Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• findVerifiedPapersA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the multiple databases searched (CrossRef, OpenAlex, etc.) and the verification requirement (only papers with DOIs are returned). This helps the agent understand the tool's scope and output quality, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

  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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and key behavior. It lists all databases upfront and specifies the verification requirement without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 complexity (searching multiple databases with verification), annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive), and schema fully documents parameters, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the multi-source approach and DOI verification, though without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., what fields are included).

  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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax or source differences). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

  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 ('search multiple academic databases'), the resource ('papers'), and a key distinguishing feature ('return only verified, real citations with DOIs'). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on multi-source search with verification, unlike batchVerifyCitations and verifyCitation which likely handle verification of existing citations rather than searching.

  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 implies usage context by specifying it searches 'multiple academic databases' and returns 'verified, real citations with DOIs', suggesting it's for finding reliable academic sources. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (batchVerifyCitations, verifyCitation), which likely handle different verification scenarios.

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

• batchVerifyCitationsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying that it 'Returns verification status for each citation,' which clarifies the output behavior. Annotations already indicate it's read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat those traits, but it usefully describes the return format.

  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 front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, efficiency benefit, and return value without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 moderate complexity, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, and output behavior. With annotations handling safety traits and no output schema, the description fills gaps by explaining the return format. However, it could briefly mention error handling or limits for full completeness.

  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 description mentions 'citations' as the input but doesn't add semantic details beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the 'citations' array and its nested properties, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra parameter insights.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Verify multiple citations') and resource ('citations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'verifyCitation' by emphasizing batch processing efficiency. It explicitly mentions the return value ('verification status for each citation'), which adds clarity.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states 'More efficient than calling verifyCitation multiple times,' directly comparing it to a sibling tool. This helps the agent choose this tool for batch operations over single-citation verification.

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

• verifyCitationA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists the specific databases checked (CrossRef, OpenAlex, etc.) and states that it 'returns null if not found,' which clarifies the output behavior. Annotations already indicate it's read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat those traits, but it enhances understanding with operational details.

  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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with a critical warning, states the purpose and usage in a single sentence, lists databases efficiently, and ends with return behavior. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and 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 complexity (verifying citations across multiple databases) and the absence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, usage, databases checked, and return behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which could be useful for full transparency. The annotations cover safety aspects, so it's adequate but not exhaustive.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (title, authors, year, doi, journal), including details like 'partial matches accepted' for title and 'last names sufficient' for authors. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 3 by not duplicating schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('academic citation'), explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for verifying citations before mentioning them (unlike batchVerifyCitations or findVerifiedPapers), and provides critical context about checking multiple databases. The 'CRITICAL' prefix emphasizes its importance.

  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 states when to use this tool ('before mentioning [a citation]') and provides clear alternatives by naming sibling tools (batchVerifyCitations, findVerifiedPapers), though it doesn't detail when to use those instead. The 'CRITICAL' label implies it should be used for any citation verification, making the guidance comprehensive.

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