Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_scraper_statusA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes the return format (a dictionary with specific fields) and implies a read-only operation, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured breakdown of the return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized for quick comprehension.

  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's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and output format, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error cases). The output schema likely covers return details, reducing the need for extensive description.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on the output. A baseline of 4 is justified since there are no parameters to explain.

  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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('scraper health and configuration'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_flights' (which appears unrelated), so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

  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 or in what context. It simply states what the tool does without any usage instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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

• search_flightsA
  3.6/5.0
  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 mentions that the tool runs a browser (via 'headless' parameter) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, potential costs, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a mutation/read classification.

  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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and efficiently explains 10 parameters and return structure. While comprehensive, it maintains appropriate density without wasted words. The only minor improvement would be front-loading the core purpose more prominently.

  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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and return structure. However, it lacks important contextual information about behavioral constraints, error handling, and usage boundaries that would be needed for optimal agent operation.

  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 description provides excellent parameter semantics that fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is clearly explained with examples (e.g., 'SEA' for origin), formats ('YYYY-MM-DD'), defaults, and meaningful mappings (cabin_class codes to class names). This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for flights on Bing Flights.' It specifies the exact action (search) and resource (flights), and distinguishes it from the only sibling tool (get_scraper_status) by focusing on flight search rather than scraper status checking.

  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. While it mentions Bing Flights as the source, there's no context about when this search method is preferred over other flight search tools or APIs, nor any prerequisites or limitations for usage.

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