Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_bookings_by_dateB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not mention read-only nature, potential rate limits, or pagination. Only describes basic functionality.

  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?

  Clear structure with Args and Returns sections. Slightly verbose due to docstring format, but each line adds value. No redundant information.

  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?

  With output schema present, returns explanation is acceptable. However, lacks details on pagination, limits, or edge cases. Adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for complex queries.

  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%, but description adds format (YYYY-MM-DD) and purpose for each parameter, including default for include_canceled. Adequately compensates for missing schema descriptions.

  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 (Find all bookings) and resource (bookings) with a specific scope (date range). It distinguishes from siblings like search_bookings_by_customer and get_booking.

  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 (e.g., search_bookings_by_customer, get_booking). No mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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

• search_bookings_by_customerA
  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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether permissions are needed, pagination, or error handling. It only states the return format, missing important traits for a search 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 concise and well-structured with an Args section and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

  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 search tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description explains parameters well. However, it does not clarify behavior when both name and email are provided (AND vs OR), or what happens when no search criteria are given. The return mention is sufficient, but some gaps remain.

  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 useful meaning: 'Full or partial... (case-insensitive)' for customer_name and customer_email, and the range for days_back. This goes beyond the bare schema and helps the agent understand parameter usage.

  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 'Search' and the resource 'bookings', and specifies criteria 'by customer name or email'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_bookings_by_date' which searches by date, and 'get_booking' which retrieves a specific booking.

  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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to siblings like 'search_bookings_by_date' for date-based queries. The context signals and sibling names imply differentiation but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.

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

• get_bookingA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool 'looks up' a booking, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or any constraints. This is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

  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 with three lines covering purpose, parameter details, and return summary. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary information.

  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 simple 1-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context: return includes 'customer, pricing, and product info.' It could mention potential errors or references to siblings, but overall it is adequate.

  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 description explains the only parameter 'booking_number' with an example ('e.g., 123456789'), adding meaningful context beyond the input schema which only provides a title. Given 0% schema description coverage, this adequately compensates.

  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 'Look up a specific booking by its booking number,' specifying the verb (look up), resource (booking), and identifier. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_booking_payments and search_bookings_by_customer/date.

  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 you have a booking number, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., searching by customer or date). The context of sibling names provides some guidance, but the description lacks explicit usage context.

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

• get_booking_paymentsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool returns payment breakdown with methods, amounts, and detection source, but does not disclose permissions needed, error behavior (e.g., booking not found), or side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

  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 very concise: two sentences specifying purpose and parameter, with a structured Args and Returns section. No irrelevant information, and the key points are front-loaded.

  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 low complexity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what parameter is required, and what is returned (payment breakdown including methods, amounts, and detection). It is complete enough for a simple read tool, though the return structure could be slightly more detailed.

  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%, so the description compensates by explaining 'booking_number' as 'The Bookeo booking number'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's generic title. For a single required parameter, it is sufficient.

  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 'payment details for a specific booking'. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_booking (returns booking info) and search_bookings (returns list of bookings) by focusing exclusively on payments.

  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 provides the required parameter (booking_number) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given, leaving the agent to infer based on the specific payment focus.

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