Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fullTextAddressGeocodingC
  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 behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation (geocoding) and return structure, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or accuracy considerations. For a geocoding tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by defining the tool's function and output format. However, the Returns section could be more concise by combining the list items into a single sentence, and the front-loading is slightly weakened by separating the purpose from the parameter details.

  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 moderate complexity (geocoding with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and return structure but lacks context about the geocoding service's limitations, coordinate system, or how to handle ambiguous addresses. The absence of output schema means the description must explain returns, which it does adequately but not comprehensively.

  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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'address' by explaining it's 'address to convert,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's minimal title 'Address.' However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates adequately but doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or edge cases. The baseline for one parameter with low coverage is appropriately met.

  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's purpose: 'Converts the given address to coordinates (geocoding).' This specifies the verb ('converts') and resource ('address to coordinates'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'publicTransitRoutes', which appears to serve a different purpose (routing vs. geocoding).

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'publicTransitRoutes' or any other geocoding options, nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The only implied usage is for address-to-coordinate conversion, but no contextual boundaries are defined.

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

• publicTransitRoutesB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'searchTime' is used to indicate 'whether transportation is in operation' and references 'service' in the response, but doesn't explain authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no routes are found.

  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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. However, the return value section is somewhat verbose with nested bullet points that could be simplified, and the opening sentence could be more front-loaded with key information.

  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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context. It explains what the tool returns in detail, which compensates for the missing output schema, but doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations beyond the schema. It explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'longitude of the starting point (WSG84)'), clarifies the 'language' parameter's enum values (0 for Korean, 1 for English), and provides context for 'searchTime' as optional with operational status implications.

  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 'retrieves public transportation routes from start to destination,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'fullTextAddressGeocoding,' which appears to be a different geocoding function rather than a route-finding alternative.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context. It mentions the sibling tool 'fullTextAddressGeocoding' but doesn't explain how they relate or when to choose one over the other.

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