Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_filmsD
  1.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the search is case-sensitive, supports partial matches, returns a list or a single result, or any details about pagination or error handling. This is a critical gap for a search tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely short but under-specified, with awkward phrasing ('in API by title') that does not earn its place. It lacks informative content, making it more of an under-specification than a concise summary.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It fails to mention what the search returns, whether it returns a collection or a single object, or any constraints on the search. The description is inadequate for a simple search 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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'search' with a clear description ('Title of a Star Wars film'). The description's 'by title' is redundant, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description 'Search films Star Wars, in API by title' largely restates the tool name and title without adding meaningful specificity. It conveys a verb+resource but fails to clarify scope or behavior, distinguishing it from siblings only by resource name, which is already evident from the tool name.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  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 versus alternatives like search_characters or search_planets. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

• search_charactersB
  3.1/5.0
  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 only states that it searches 'by name' and does not mention return format, pagination, or confirm that this is a read-only operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is grammatically awkward ('Search characters Star Wars') and duplicates the title. It is concise but lacks structure and fails to add meaningful detail beyond the basic purpose.

  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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with a fully descriptive schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or describe what the response contains, and the low complexity only partially compensates for these omissions.

  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% for the single 'search' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by name' merely restates the schema's intent and adds no extra detail about matching behavior, case sensitivity, or expected input format.

  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 the verb 'Search' with the resource 'characters Star Wars' and specifies 'by name', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_characters_byId. However, the phrasing is awkward and repeats the title, and it does not explicitly mention the alternative of searching by ID.

  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 phrase 'by name' implies this tool is for name-based character searches, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus search_characters_byId or the other sibling tools, nor any exclusions.

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

• search_planetsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'by name' but does not reveal return format, matching behavior (exact vs partial), pagination, or case sensitivity. This is minimal transparency for a search tool, though it is not misleading.

  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 concise sentence that gets to the point, though the phrasing 'in API' is slightly awkward and the 'Star Wars' mention is redundant with the title. It is efficient without being overly verbose.

  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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details about return values or limitations. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps around expected results and edge cases, making it a minimum viable score.

  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 already provides a clear description for the 'search' parameter ('Name of a planet in Star Wars Films'), giving 100% coverage. The description's 'by name' reiterates this without adding new details, so 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 clearly states the action (search) and resource (planets in Star Wars), with the parameter 'by name' adding specificity. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like search_films or search_characters, but the resource focus on planets makes the purpose clear.

  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; you would use this tool to search for Star Wars planets by name. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., 'use search_characters for characters') or any exclusions, so it falls short of a 4.

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

• search_characters_byIdB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose what happens if the ID is not found, the return format, or any potential side effects. For a simple lookup this may be sufficient, but more detail would improve clarity.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context, making it highly efficient.

  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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It could mention not-found behavior or the expected response, but given the tool's simplicity, the current description is nearly 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 fully describes the single parameter 'id' as 'ID of the Star Wars character', giving 100% schema coverage. The description only adds the redundant word 'specific', which is already implied by fetching by ID, so it provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

  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 'Search a specific Star Wars character by ID' clearly states a verb ('search'), resource ('Star Wars character'), and scope ('by ID'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'search_characters', which likely searches across characters generally.

  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 does not mention that this should be used when you have a known ID, nor does it exclude it for other search scenarios. There is no explicit context or alternative naming.

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