Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_endpointsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and behavior. The description adds the 'natural-language query' detail but does not contradict annotations.

  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?

  A single sentence with no filler, but could include parameter hints without becoming verbose. Still efficient for its length.

  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 description is too sparse for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions. While output schema exists, the lack of parameter guidance and usage context makes it incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the schema. It hints at 'query' usage but ignores limit, source, and toolset 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 clearly states the tool searches a specific resource (Sugra endpoint catalog) using a natural-language query, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like call_endpoint (execution) and describe_endpoint (details).

  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 for natural-language search but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• call_endpointA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds significant context: duration classes, bulk billing (1 credit per body item), structured error responses with retry hints, and that a single retry after upstream timeout often succeeds due to cache warming. No annotation contradiction.

  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?

  Single paragraph but well-structured: starts with main action, then plan, duration classes, billing, errors. Every sentence provides value, no fluff. Front-loaded with essential information.

  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 6 parameters and dynamic endpoint behavior (openWorldHint), the description covers planning (describe_endpoint), performance expectations (duration classes), billing, and error handling. Output schema exists to document return values. All necessary context is present for an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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?

  Schema has 33% coverage with only body and params having descriptions. Description adds meaning by explaining how to use params dynamically (via describe_endpoint), and clarifies body format. However, limit and fields parameters lack any description in schema or description, relying on the dynamic nature (openWorldHint). Still, the description directs the agent to describe_endpoint for exact parameters, compensating.

  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 calls a Sugra API endpoint by operation_id, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'search_endpoints' which likely searches for endpoints. The verb 'call' and resource 'Sugra API endpoint' 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 Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides detailed guidance: plan with describe_endpoint's agent_hints, discusses duration classes (fast, slow, heavy) and their implications, bulk billing, and error handling with retry advice. This helps an agent decide when and how to use the tool effectively.

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