Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_fieldB
  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 bears full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how character usage is determined (e.g., with/without spaces), or what the output looks like.

  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?

  Two sentences, minimal waste. However, the attribution 'Built by asoagency.io' is unnecessary for tool function and could be removed for greater conciseness.

  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?

  No output schema and no description of the return value. It is unclear what the tool returns (e.g., usage count, boolean for exceed/not, etc.), leaving a significant gap for a tool that checks against a limit.

  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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which already defines 'field', 'value', and 'platform' clearly.

  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 action (check) and resource (one metadata field's character usage against store limit). It distinguishes from siblings: audit_metadata likely checks multiple fields, get_limits retrieves limits, keyword_field_check focuses on keywords.

  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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Does not mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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

• audit_metadataA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool scores and returns fixes but omits any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning the return of 'specific, prioritized fixes'. However, it lacks details on the output format and how results are structured, which affects 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

  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's function: scoring app store metadata against ASO best practices (0–100) and returning prioritized fixes. It differentiates from siblings like check_field or keyword_field_check by being a comprehensive audit rather than a field-specific check.

  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 auditing metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like check_field or get_limits. No when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons are given.

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

• get_limitsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Return' – a read operation – but offers no details on authentication, rate limits, or other behaviors. For a simple read tool, minimal transparency is provided.

  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?

  Two sentences; the first is essential, the second ('Built by asoagency.io') is non-functional branding. Nearly concise with minimal waste.

  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 this simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned. No additional details are needed for the agent to use it correctly.

  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 coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra meaning. The schema already describes the optional platform parameter and its default behavior (omit for both). Description does not enhance beyond baseline.

  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 returns App Store and Google Play metadata character limits, using a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., audit_metadata) which focus on other aspects.

  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 character limits are needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. Without guidance, the agent may not differentiate from siblings.

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

• keyword_field_checkA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lists the transformations (remove spaces, de-duplicate) and reporting, but does not clarify if the tool modifies data permanently or returns only a report. The behavioral scope is partially disclosed.

  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?

  Two sentences, 20 words, with no filler. The action is front-loaded ('Clean up') and every sentence provides essential information. 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input format, operations, and output (report on savings). Minor non-essential detail (vendor name) does not detract. Completeness is high for the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  The schema description covers 100% of the parameters but is minimal ('The comma-separated iOS keywords field to optimize'). The tool description adds significant meaning by detailing the cleaning and reporting operations, going beyond what the schema provides.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Clean up') and clearly identifies the resource ('iOS 100-character keyword field') along with concrete actions (remove spaces after commas, de-duplicate terms, report savings). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like 'audit_metadata' or 'check_field'.

  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 optimizing iOS keyword fields but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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