Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_advertisersA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the return fields (id, name, region, ad_count). It lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, ordering, or any side effects.

  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 well-structured with Args/Returns sections and is clear, though the 'Args:' line is slightly redundant since there is only one parameter. It is efficient overall.

  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?

  Given the tool has an output schema (context signal: true), the description provides the return fields sufficiently. For a simple one-parameter search tool, it is nearly complete, but lacks behavioral details like pagination.

  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 coverage is 0% for the only parameter 'query', but the description adds concrete examples ('Nike', 'Coinbase', 'crypto exchange'), giving clear semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

  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 searches for advertisers by keyword or company name, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('advertisers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_advertiser_by_domain' which is a different search variant.

  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 by providing example queries (e.g., 'Nike'), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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

• get_ad_detailA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the return format (text/image/video), including content fields and last_shown date, which is sufficient for a read-only tool.

  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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values based on ad type. It covers the main aspects but could optionally mention error handling or missing data scenarios.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by providing example values and brief descriptions for both parameters. This helps the agent understand the expected format beyond just the parameter names.

  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 gets full details for a specific ad creative, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource as 'ad creative'. This distinguishes it from sibling 'get_ads' which likely lists ads rather than retrieving details for one.

  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?

  Usage is implied: use when you need full details for a specific ad creative given advertiser_id and creative_id. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• get_adsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses key behaviors: it searches by name, decodes text content, returns a list with specific fields (format, date, content). No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden and does so adequately, though it lacks details on error handling or authentication.

  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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 only two simple parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, its inputs, and output structure. It is complete for its complexity.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining advertiser_name (with examples) and count (default, max). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

  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 gets ads for an advertiser by name, with decoded content. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ad_detail (single ad) and search_advertiser_by_domain (domain-based search).

  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?

  It explains how the tool works (searches by name, fetches creatives, decodes content) and when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools, though the sibling context implies differentiation.

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

• search_advertiser_by_domainA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description discloses return values (advertiser info with fields and null for not found) and implies a read-only operation through the verb 'search'. It could be more transparent about potential errors or edge cases, but it covers the main behavioral aspects.

  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 concise docstring with clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  For a simple single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and return value adequately. No additional context is necessary for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema has 0% coverage for the 'domain' parameter, but the description adds significant meaning by specifying it is a website domain and providing examples ('nike.com', 'coinbase.com'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema description.

  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 'Find an advertiser by their website domain,' which specifies the verb, resource, and search criterion. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_advertisers' by focusing on domain-based lookup.

  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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool (when you have a domain) and includes an example. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is sufficiently self-explanatory.

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