Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_campaignsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral aspects itself. It only states that campaigns are listed, revealing a read-like operation, but it does not mention pagination, return format, filtering behavior beyond the status parameter, authentication needs, or whether results are limited.

  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 a single short phrase with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is extremely brief.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important context unstated, such as what fields are returned, whether results are paginated, and what the default behavior is when no status filter is provided.

  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 covers both parameters: 'status' has an enum and a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a clear verb ('List') and resource ('advertising campaigns'), which tells the agent what the tool does. It is naturally distinguishable from the sibling 'get_campaign' by pluralization (list of campaigns vs single campaign), though it does not explicitly state that distinction.

  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?

  There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus 'get_campaign'. The plural form implies it returns multiple campaigns and the sibling returns one, but no explicit usage context, exclusions, or alternative criteria are provided.

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

• get_campaignB
  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 for behavioral context. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose return shape, behavior for nonexistent ids, error handling, or whether any side effects occur.

  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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It clearly communicates the action, resource, and required parameter in minimal words.

  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?

  For a simple get-by-id tool with one documented parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state return values or error behavior, nor does it provide usage guidance versus list_campaigns, leaving some gaps in 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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter with 100% coverage. The description’s 'by id' adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (advertising campaign), and the selection mechanism (by id). The word 'single' differentiates it from the sibling tool list_campaigns, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

  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 explicit guidance is given about when to use get_campaign versus list_campaigns. The distinction is implied by the word 'single', but the description does not name the alternative or state conditions like 'use list_campaigns to fetch multiple campaigns'.

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