Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• quoteC
  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 must disclose side effects, permissions, and behavioral traits on its own. It mentions constraints (1–20 stores/lines) and handle syntax, but doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, modifies anything, or requires special permissions. This is a significant gap.

  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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core capacity and then packs in the essential parameter format, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  While the tool has an output schema (covering return values), the description omits semantics for two of three parameters ('redetect' and 'destination') and lacks any usage context or alternative tool comparisons. For a tool with three parameters and only core input documented, this is incomplete.

  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 provides meaningful detail for the 'quotes' parameter, explaining acceptable values (URL, ref, handle) and the format for multi-variant products. However, it leaves 'redetect' and 'destination' completely unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage, it only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

  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 identifies the specific action of quoting 1–20 stores with 1–20 lines each, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like product, search, and images. However, it doesn't explicitly state the outcome or high-level purpose of a 'quote', leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

  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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like product, search, or images. The description only covers capacity limits and input format, not the appropriate context or conditions for invocation.

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

• searchB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 usefully reveals the result handle format (r<run>.<s>.<i>) and variant suffix, but it doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is inferable from 'Search' but not explicitly stated.

  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 dense sentence with no filler, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the compactness creates ambiguity (e.g., '1–100' and '{store, query}'), so it's not maximally clear.

  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?

  Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to explain key parameters like redetect and description_chars, and only partially clarifies entries. The workflow hint is helpful, but overall the tool cannot be used with full confidence without making assumptions about three of the four inputs.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning for 'entries' by suggesting each has 'store' and 'query' fields, but limit, redetect, and description_chars are completely unexplained, leaving the agent with significant gaps for three of four parameters.

  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 verb 'Search' and resource 'entries' clearly identify the tool's core purpose. The description also hints at the workflow by mentioning results can be passed to product or quote, which helps distinguish it from downstream tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'images' and the '{store, query}' notation is ambiguous.

  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?

  The description gives clear workflow context: search first, then pass handles to product or quote. It doesn't state when not to use the tool or compare it to the 'images' sibling, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still provides useful situational guidance.

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

• productA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly states this is a fetch (read) operation, implying non-destructive behavior. It also discloses a notable trait: 'Product results issue fresh handles for quote,' which is useful for downstream tool chaining. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements, so it is not a 5.

  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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence about fresh handles is a bit cryptic but still relevant and short. No redundant information, and the format is clean. It could be improved by separating parameters, but overall it is efficient.

  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?

  The tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, which covers return values. However, the description omits explanations for 'redetect' and 'description_chars', and uses domain-specific terms like 'refs' and 'r<run>.<s>.<i>[.<v>]' that are not defined. It is adequate for a straightforward product detail fetch but leaves gaps for a fully autonomous agent to use all features correctly.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions input types (URLs, refs, handles) which relates to the 'inputs' parameter, but it does not describe 'redetect' or 'description_chars' at all. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare titles, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of the other 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 fetches product details, specifying the exact input types (URLs, refs, or handles) and a batch size range (1–100). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, quote, and images, which have different purposes. The verb 'Fetch detail' is specific and aligns with 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description implies usage for retrieving product details when you have product identifiers (URLs, refs, handles). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (search, quote, images) makes it clear this is for direct product lookups. The 1–100 range also conveys batch usage. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• imagesA
  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 the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the 'up to ten' limit and the selection format (N or START:END), providing useful constraints. However, it does not explain what happens on invalid handles or selection ranges, or what 'cached' implies about freshness.

  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?

  One well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, limit, and selection format. No redundant 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?

  The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The description covers the tool's purpose, key parameters, and selection syntax, which is sufficient for a moderately complex tool. It lacks context about the meaning of the handle components or caching behavior, but overall is adequate.

  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 0% description coverage, but the description explains the 'handle' parameter as 'r<run>.<s>.<i>' and 'selection' as 'N or START:END', providing semantics beyond the raw schema. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

  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 downloads up to ten cached images for a given item handle, with a specific selection syntax. It distinguishes from sibling tools (product, search, quote) which are not about image downloading.

  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 a user needs cached images for a specific item handle, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use. No exclusions or alternative tool references.

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