Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• syncForm106A
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'log into a Hilan tenant' (a side effect) and 'download' (a read-like action), but the tool name 'syncForm106' suggests a syncing operation that might write data locally. The description does not clarify whether this is read-only, whether it stores data, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap.

  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 that front-loads the core action ('Log into a Hilan tenant and download Form 106') and then specifies the variable part (year). It contains no unnecessary words or fluff, earning a perfect score.

  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 there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., a file path, PDF content, or successful message). It does not mention return value or any post-download behavior. Additionally, the 'sync' aspect is unexplained, leaving uncertainty about whether the tool stores data. The description covers the action but not the full context.

  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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (year and tenant), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds clarity by mentioning 'for a given year, or the default year', which explains the year parameter's default behavior. No additional parameter semantics are needed beyond that.

  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: 'download Form 106 (annual tax summary)' from a Hilan tenant for a given year. It specifies the resource (Form 106) and differentiates it from sibling tools like syncPayslips, which handle payslips, making the purpose distinct.

  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 when to use this tool: whenever a user needs an annual tax summary (Form 106). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. The sibling tools list shows different purposes, so there is no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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

• listTenantsA
  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 of disclosure. It explicitly states 'no secrets returned,' which is a useful safety guarantee. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, whether the list is cached, or any potential side effects.

  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?

  A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes a meaningful safety note, with no wasted words.

  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, no output schema—the description adequately conveys what the tool does and its key behavioral constraint. It could be more explicit about the structure of the returned tenant list, but that is not critical for this simple list operation.

  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 description naturally has nothing to add about parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline 4, and no further elaboration is needed.

  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 ('List') and a clear resource ('configured Hilan tenants'), making its purpose immediately clear and distinct from sibling tools like syncPayslips or query.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool relative to alternatives, and there is no mention of prerequisites or context. For example, it doesn't say whether tenant IDs obtained here are needed as inputs for other Hilan tools.

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

• syncPayslipsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that authentication uses previously ingested credentials, that it syncs both structured data and PDFs, and includes behavioral notes in parameter descriptions (e.g., skipPdf leaves existing PDFs untouched). This goes beyond merely repeating the tool name, though it lacks details on error handling or idempotency.

  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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes essential context (login, data types). Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

  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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers prerequisites and actions but does not mention return values or success/failure behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at what the agent receives after invocation, which it does not.

  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% and each parameter has a detailed description explaining semantics (e.g., tenant optional via env, skipPdf behavior, monthsBack as a sanity ceiling). The tool description itself does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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: 'Log into a Hilan tenant... and sync recent payslips', with a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying syncing recent data (vs resyncPayslipMonth for a specific month or downloadCombinedPayslipsPdf for combined PDF).

  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 recent payslip data is needed but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like downloadCombinedPayslipsPdf or resyncPayslipMonth. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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

• describeTableA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no data modification) or clarify the response format. It is adequate but lacks richer behavioral disclosure.

  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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and includes a necessary scope restriction. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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?

  The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the core purpose and allowed inputs. Although it does not describe the return value format, the phrase 'columns and indexes' already implies the output structure. For this low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

  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 already fully describes the single parameter 'table' with an enum and description. The tool description merely repeats the allowed values ('payslips or form106 only'), adding no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

  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: 'Get columns and indexes for a table'. The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource (columns and indexes) is well-defined, and the scope restriction ('payslips or form106 only') distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform sync, download, or query operations.

  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 a clear constraint on when the tool is applicable: 'payslips or form106 only'. This tells the agent not to use it for other tables. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases (e.g., listTables) or state when to prefer them, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• downloadCombinedPayslipsPdfA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: automatic splitting for long ranges due to a URL-length ceiling, including the approximate threshold (12-15 years). This adds value beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover failure modes or authentication requirements.

  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 long: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a crucial caveat. It is well-structured and free of 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior and the split caveat. It doesn't explicitly state the return format, but 'Downloads ONE PDF' implies a file response, and the sibling tool context doesn't require more.

  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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (fromMonth, toMonth, tenant) with format examples. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 function: downloads one combined PDF for all payslips in a date range, explicitly contrasting with the per-month approach. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like syncPayslips or listTenants by focusing on the combined download use case.

  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?

  It provides context for when to use the tool ('handy for printing/sharing a multi-year span at once') and contrasts with per-month downloads. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the 'instead of one file per month' hint covers this.

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

• getPersonalDetailsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the login side effect and the live nature of the lookup, which adds behavioral context. It does not detail authentication requirements or session implications, but for a simple fetch operation this is reasonably transparent.

  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 efficient sentences that front-load the verb and resource, list the retrieved fields, and provide a key behavioral note. No redundant or filler content.

  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?

  The tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema). The description covers what it does and a key contextual detail ('live lookup'). It lacks return format details, but given the low complexity and field enumeration, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 has 100% parameter description coverage, including the 'tenant' field's purpose. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as per the rubric.

  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 ('fetches') and clearly identifies the resource ('personal details') with an enumerated list of fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like syncPayslips and query, which deal with other data or local database operations.

  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 statement 'This is a live lookup, not stored in the local database' provides clear context for when to use this tool (when fresh data is needed) and implicitly contrasts with local DB tools like query. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion scenarios.

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

• listTablesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses a key behavioral guarantee: credentials/sessions are never exposed. It also implies a read-only listing operation, which is sufficient for a simple list 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?

  A single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action, followed by a necessary caveat. No wasted words.

  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 operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates scope and exclusions. It could mention output format, but the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.

  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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying what is listed without needing to explain parameters.

  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 ('List') and resource ('queryable tables'), names concrete examples (payslips, form106), and explicitly excludes credentials/sessions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that might expose sensitive data.

  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?

  It implies this tool is for discovering available tables before querying, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like describeTable or query. The context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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

• dismissUpdateNoticeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of the call (stops mentioning the specified version) and notes it will still mention newer versions. This is sufficient for a simple dismissal action, though it doesn't detail side effects or return values.

  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, front-loaded with the action and context. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

  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?

  The tool is extremely simple: one parameter, no output schema. The description fully explains when to use it, what it does, and the expected outcome. There's no meaningful gap in context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces that the version must be the same as the one from the _updateNotice, but the schema already provides the full description of the parameter. No significant additional semantic detail is added.

  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: dismiss an update notice by passing the same version string from a previous _updateNotice. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (syncPayslips, query, etc.) which are unrelated to update notices.

  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?

  It explicitly says when to call it: after the user declines an update offered via an _updateNotice field. It also explains the result (stops mentioning that version) and sets expectations about future notifications, but doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives.

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

• resyncPayslipMonthA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: overwriting whatever is already stored. It also mentions that the PDF is fetched by default (and can be skipped via skipPdf). It does not mention return values or edge cases, but the critical overwriting behavior is clearly stated.

  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: the first states the core action and scope, the second provides use cases and alternatives. No unnecessary words or repetition of 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?

  Given the simple tool with a well-documented schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, scope, overwriting behavior, and when to use it. The lack of return-value mention is a minor gap since no output schema exists, but the essential information is present.

  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% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for period, tenant, and skipPdf. The description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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.

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool re-fetches a single specific month's payslip data and PDF, overwriting existing stored data. It explicitly names the resource and scope, and distinguishes itself from syncPayslips by mentioning the alternative.

  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 provides when to use this tool ('to retry one bad/truncated PDF, or to quickly check one month's numbers') and when not to ('instead of re-running syncPayslips over the whole history'), making the use case clear.

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

• queryA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is SELECT-only and that credentials/sessions/tenants are never reachable, providing important safety and scope constraints. It lacks details like return format, but this is sufficient 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes relevant constraints. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, allowed tables, and safety. It is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke correctly without further clarification.

  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 schema covers the 'sql' parameter with a description and example. The tool description adds extra meaning by specifying allowed tables (payslips/form106) and the SELECT-only constraint, which are not present in 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 the tool's function: executing a SELECT-only SQL query against specific tables (payslips/form106). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like syncPayslips or downloadCombinedPayslipsPdf, which perform different actions.

  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 when to use the tool (for read-only SQL queries) and sets boundaries (SELECT-only, only specific tables). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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