Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_recipes_by_ingredientsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function without mentioning what happens with missing ingredients, result limits, 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.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise (one sentence) but overly minimal for a tool with 3 parameters. It front-loads the action but lacks necessary details, striking a balance between brevity and adequacy.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the ranking strategy, return format, or behavior when no recipes are found, leaving gaps for the agent.

  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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantics beyond implying 'ingredients you have' aligns with the ingredients parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

  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: find recipes based on ingredients. The verb 'find' and resource 'recipes' are specific, and the ingredient-based approach distinguishes it from siblings like search_recipes, though not explicitly.

  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 alternatives such as search_recipes or get_random_recipes. The description lacks any contextual advice for selection.

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

• search_recipesC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description does not disclose pagination, sorting, return format, or constraints like rate limits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, no wasted words, but could be more informative without being verbose.

  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?

  8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations. Description lacks details on result format, default behavior, or how criteria combine.

  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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond listing criteria types.

  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?

  Description states it searches for recipes by ingredients, diet, cuisine, etc. Clear verb+resource but does not differentiate from sibling find_recipes_by_ingredients or search_ingredients.

  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 vs alternatives like find_recipes_by_ingredients or get_recipe_information.

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

• analyze_nutritionC
  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 must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'analyze nutrition information' without detailing expected output, side effects, or data source. The behavioral impact is unclear.

  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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness; still, no unnecessary words are present.

  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?

  Without output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what constitutes 'nutrition information' and return format. It fails to do so, leaving gaps for a tool with two parameters.

  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 both parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 'analyze' and resource 'nutrition information for a list of ingredients'. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are recipe-focused, but lacks specificity on what the analysis includes.

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_ingredients or get_recipe_information. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools.

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

• search_ingredientsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states a generic search action. No information is given about return type, pagination, performance, or any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed.

  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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though slightly under-specified for a search tool.

  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 no output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior. It does not, leaving the agent without expectations about the structure of results or error handling.

  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 the description adds minimal value beyond the parameter descriptions. It confirms 'by name' aligns with the query field but doesn't clarify the meaning of 'number' or 'metaInformation' beyond defaults.

  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 searches for ingredients by name, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'find_recipes_by_ingredients' or 'search_recipes', which could cause confusion.

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about when it is appropriate or inappropriate to search by name, or what to use for other search criteria.

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

• get_recipe_informationA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Get detailed information' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., if ID is not found). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a read operation.

  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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

  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 is simple (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the description is adequate for a basic 'get by ID' pattern. However, it could be improved by mentioning the optional 'includeNutrition' parameter and briefly noting what kind of details are returned (e.g., '...including ingredients, instructions, and nutrition if requested').

  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% (both 'id' and 'includeNutrition' have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with high coverage (>80%), baseline is 3.

  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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('detailed information about a specific recipe'), and the input method ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_recipes' (search, not specific) and 'get_random_recipes' (random).

  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 when you have a specific recipe ID, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., 'search_recipes' for finding by criteria, 'find_recipes_by_ingredients' for ingredient-based lookups). No exclusions or context are given.

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

• get_random_recipesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are deterministic. The description is minimally adequate for a simple 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?

  A single sentence that conveys the core functionality and optional filtering. No unnecessary words or repetition. Appropriate length for a simple tool.

  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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose and the optional filter. Minor gap: does not describe the return format, but for random recipes it is acceptable.

  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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The top-level description mentions the tags filter but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'random recipes', and mentions optional filtering by tags. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_recipes (search vs random) and get_recipe_information (specific vs random).

  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 use when random recipes are desired, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like search_recipes or find_recipes_by_ingredients. No when-not-to-use 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.