Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_productC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves nutritional analysis and scores, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what specific data is returned. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

  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?

  Given the complexity of a tool that analyzes nutritional data, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'nutritional analysis and scores' entail, the format of the response, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'barcode' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's used for product identification, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Get nutritional analysis and scores') and resource ('for a product by barcode'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_product' or 'search_products', which might also retrieve product information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

  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 like 'get_product' or 'search_products'. It implies usage by specifying the barcode parameter but offers no context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

• compare_productsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the tool compares nutritional information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if barcodes are invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, efficient sentence: 'Compare nutritional information between multiple products.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and every part earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function. This is an excellent example of 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?

  Given the complexity of comparing multiple products and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how the comparison is presented (e.g., side-by-side table, summary). For a tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (e.g., 'Array of product barcodes to compare (max 10)' and 'Focus comparison on specific aspect'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'focus' enum values in context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 tool's purpose: 'Compare nutritional information between multiple products.' It specifies the verb ('compare') and resource ('nutritional information between multiple products'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_product' or 'get_product,' which might also involve product data retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze_product' or 'search_products,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

• get_product_suggestionsC
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get product suggestions') without describing how it behaves—such as whether it's a read-only operation, how results are returned, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the complexity of 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, result format, and usage context, which are essential for an agent to effectively invoke this tool without structured support.

  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 mentions 'dietary preferences or restrictions', which aligns with one parameter, but adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and detailed descriptions for all parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

  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 tool's purpose as 'Get product suggestions based on dietary preferences or restrictions', which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('product suggestions'), and key input criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_products' or 'get_product', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 like 'search_products' or 'get_product'. It mentions the input criteria but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• search_productsC
  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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and sorting capabilities but doesn't address key behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, expected response format, pagination behavior beyond schema hints, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is too minimal for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

  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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how results are structured, whether there are limitations on search scope, or how to interpret empty results. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects despite the comprehensive parameter schema.

  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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'various filters and criteria' but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 verb ('search') and resource ('food products'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_product_suggestions' or 'analyze_product' which might also involve searching or retrieving product information, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

  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 like 'get_product' (for single product retrieval) or 'get_product_suggestions' (which might offer recommendations). It mentions 'various filters and criteria' but doesn't specify contexts where this comprehensive search is preferred over simpler sibling tools.

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

• get_productB
  3.3/5.0
  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. While 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid barcode), or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., nutritional data, pricing). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve detailed information') and specifies the key constraint ('by its barcode') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

  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 read operation with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the nature of 'detailed information' returned, which could be critical for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally hint at the response structure or data scope to be fully 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'barcode' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the barcode identifies a food product, which is already clear from the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Retrieve detailed information') and target resource ('about a food product by its barcode'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_products' (which likely returns multiple results) or 'analyze_product' (which might perform analysis rather than basic retrieval). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

  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 like 'search_products' or 'get_product_suggestions'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a barcode), exclusions, or comparative use cases. The agent must infer usage from the description alone without explicit direction.

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