Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_analyticsC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read, but does not mention potential side effects, performance implications, required permissions, or what 'persistent storage' implies. The description adds no meaningful behavioral context.

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

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The one-sentence description is short but contains filler phrases like 'comprehensive' and 'from persistent storage' that add no value. It lacks structured, front-loaded information that would help an agent quickly grasp key details.

  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?

  The tool has no annotations or output schema, and the description is minimal. It fails to explain how date ranges work, what the returned analytics represent, or how analysis_type changes the result. This simple tool still requires more context for safe and 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. All three parameters (start_date, end_date, analysis_type) are described in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly uses the verb 'Get' and identifies 'analytics' as the resource, but 'comprehensive' is vague and does not specify what metrics or analysis types are included. It also does not differentiate the tool from siblings like get_orders or get_restaurants, which also fetch data.

  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 choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or exclusions. The agent must infer that this tool is meant for aggregated analytics rather than raw data.

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

• get_ordersC
  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 carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get orders', implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, how results are ordered, whether pagination applies, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal beyond the tool name.

  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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action 'Get' and the resource 'orders'. It contains no redundancy or filler words, making it highly efficient while still conveying the core purpose.

  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?

  This is a relatively simple list tool but the description is insufficient for full contextual completeness. There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or the impact of date filters. It lacks the behavioral context that would help an agent understand the full scope of the operation.

  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 all 4 parameters (limit, end_date, start_date, restaurant_name) individually documented. The description's mention of 'optional filtering' adds only a generic context and no specific parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already covers parameter meaning.

  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 'Get' and resource 'orders', and adds context with 'from persistent storage' and 'optional filtering'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'search_orders', which may also retrieve orders, so it lacks 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 'search_orders' or 'sync_orders'. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selecting this tool.

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

• get_restaurantsB
  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. It only states what the tool does but gives no details about pagination, ordering, rate limits, authentication, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

  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?

  Given the tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic sense of what it returns ('order counts and spending stats') but lacks details on return structure, filtering behavior, or how the parameters affect results. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (start_date, end_date, min_orders) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('restaurants') and states the data returned ('order counts and spending stats'). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_orders or get_analytics beyond the resource name.

  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 the tool is for retrieving restaurant-level aggregate data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is inferred from the resource and data mentioned.

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

• sync_ordersB
  3.4/5.0
  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 fails to mention side effects such as whether existing data is overwritten, whether the sync is incremental or full, where the persistent storage is located, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. For a mutating operation, this is a notable gap.

  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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the core purpose and leaves space for schema to handle parameter details.

  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?

  The tool is a side-effecting sync operation with no output schema, and the description provides no context on sync semantics, storage destination, or idempotency. Given the lack of annotations, the description is too shallow to fully prepare an agent for invocation.

  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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (cookies required, max_orders with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action ('Sync orders'), the resource ('orders'), the source ('Swiggy API'), and the destination ('persistent storage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_orders and search_orders, which are read-only operations.

  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 via the word 'sync' – indicating persistence – and contrasts with read-only siblings, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_orders or search_orders. It lacks clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• search_ordersA
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and criteria but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if there are any side effects, how results are sorted, or whether pagination is applied. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

  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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and clearly communicates the searchable fields. There is no waste or redundancy—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?

  Given the tool's simplicity and the schema's thorough parameter documentation, the description provides an adequate high-level overview. However, there is no output schema, so the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of orders) and any limitations (e.g., default max results). It mentions neither, leaving some ambiguity 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 already has 100% coverage, describing both the 'query' parameter (with the same restaurant/cuisine/location hint) and 'limit'. The description adds little beyond restating the schema's own description, so it does not elevate the baseline of 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 tool's action ('Search orders') and defines the scope by specifying search criteria: restaurant name, cuisine, or location. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_orders (likely fetching by ID) and sync_orders (synchronization).

  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: it is a search tool with specific filters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use get_orders for exact ID lookups'). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer its purpose, but no direct guidance is given.

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