Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_expert_povA
  4.2/5.0
  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 adds meaningful details about what the tool returns ('signature point of view' and 'corpus rich vs thin') and implies a read-only, preparatory operation. While it does not discuss errors or side effects, the nature of the tool (a getter) makes this sufficient.

  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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.

  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?

  With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It indicates the type of information returned ('point of view', 'corpus rich vs thin') and the appropriate context ('before representing their view'), making it complete enough for a simple getter 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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'expert' with an example ('harry-sanders'), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 ('Get') and the specific resource ('a specific SEO expert's signature point of view') along with the distinguishing element ('where their corpus is rich vs thin'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_seo_experts and query_seo_experts, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 provides explicit usage context with 'Use before representing their view,' clearly indicating when this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specific use case is clear enough to guide an agent.

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

• list_seo_expertsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what is returned (POV summary, tactic counts) and implies read-only listing, but it does not offer deeper context like potential caveats, output limits, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but minimal.

  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 concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and providing a clear call-to-action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return contents (POV summary, tactic counts) and the intended usage (first step). It is complete enough for the agent to understand when and how to call this tool, though it could optionally mention the absence of search/filtering.

  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 zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract.

  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 a specific action ('List the SEO experts') and its scope ('available in this corpus'), plus the output details (POV summary, tactic counts). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing this is the discovery tool to call first before querying experts.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this first to see who you can query.' This establishes a clear usage context and ordering relative to siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives directly, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

• query_seo_expertsA
  4.4/5.0
  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. It discloses output format ('Returns actionable tactics each linked to the expert's original source video') and implies a read-only operation ('Query'). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple query tool.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler language. Every sentence contributes meaningful information about what the tool does, how to filter, and what it returns.

  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 query tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return format and available filters. It omits the default limit behavior, but the schema documents the limit parameter, and the absence of nested objects or required params keeps complexity low.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating filters can be combined ('and/or') and enumerates the topic options, exceeding the schema's per-property descriptions.

  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+resource: 'Query real SEO experts' distilled tactics.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings (list_seo_experts and get_expert_pov) by emphasizing filtered tactic retrieval with topic, keyword, and expert slug options.

  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?

  Provides clear context: this tool is for querying/filtering tactics, not for listing experts or getting a single POV. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, only implying the use case through filter descriptions.

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