Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_overall_top_productsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of dictionaries or an error message, but does not explain how 'top' is determined beyond sort parameters, nor does it mention side effects, rate limits, or error details. Adequate but limited.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, 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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers parameters, return format, and purpose fairly completely. It lacks details on error cases and the exact meaning of 'top' but is adequate for the context.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: clarifies k must be positive integer, sort_by examples (score, price), sort_order options (asc/desc), fields as optional list. This goes beyond the schema's type/defaults, though not exhaustive on valid sort_by values.

  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 retrieves top K products across all stores, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_product_details_by_url or query_store_products which are not about overall top products.

  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 needing top products across all stores but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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

• get_product_details_by_urlA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries burden: it explains the separate server query, the mapping requirement, and the return type (list of product dictionaries or error string). It does not mention read-only status or 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?

  Description is concise: three sentences plus clear Args/Returns sections, no redundant information, and main purpose is front-loaded.

  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?

  Covers key aspects: separate server, mapping issue, parameters, return type. Lacks details on error types or structure of returned dictionaries, but overall sufficient for a tool with 2 params and no output schema.

  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 minimal value over the schema; it states product_urls is a list of URLs and fields is optional with default all fields. Since schema coverage is 0%, description does compensate but lacks further detail like valid field values or format.

  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 verb 'retrieves detailed information' and the resource 'specific products using their URLs', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_available_fields and query_store_products.

  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 explicit context about the separate Product Data Server and the necessary URL-to-ID mapping, but does not directly compare to alternatives or specify when not to use this tool.

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

• query_store_productsA
  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. It discloses behavioral traits such as error conditions (server unreachable, store not found, query error) and defaults (sort_by may default to 'score', limit defaults to 10). This provides good transparency for a read operation.

  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 moderately long but well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., 'Optional.' repeats), but every sentence contributes useful information. It is front-loaded with the core action.

  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 6 parameters, one required, no output schema, and sibling tools for additional context, the description covers parameter semantics, default behaviors, and error returns. It could be more specific about output field structure, but the mention of 'product dictionaries' is adequate.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so with an Args section explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and value format (e.g., filter_criteria operators, fields list behavior). This adds significant meaning beyond 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 retrieves product data from a specific store with filtering and sorting. It distinguishes itself from siblings (store-specific vs. global top products or URL-based details). Verb 'retrieves' and resource 'product data from a specific store' are specific.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_overall_top_products or get_product_details_by_url. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions, but no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

• get_available_fieldsA
  4.4/5.0
  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 the separate server query and return format (dictionary or error string). Could mention idempotency but adds significant value.

  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?

  Concise two-sentence description plus structured Args/Returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

  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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and server dependency. Complete for a simple retrieval tool.

  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?

  The single parameter store_name is fully described beyond the schema: optional, meaning, and default behavior. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates completely.

  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 it retrieves available data fields for filtering and sorting, and mentions querying a separate server. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with products.

  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 explains the store_name parameter behavior but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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