Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• google_maps_reviewsB
  3.1/5.0
  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. It mentions 'Extract reviews' and 'Returns: Formatted reviews data', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or potential costs. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool, with each sentence adding value. Minor improvements could include more front-loaded context, but overall it's efficient and readable.

  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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, errors) and output details beyond 'Formatted reviews data'. For a data extraction tool, more output structure guidance would help, but the parameter coverage raises it above minimal viability.

  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 provides detailed parameter semantics in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose with examples (e.g., 'query: Place query, place ID, or business name'). With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover all nuances (e.g., exact format for 'cutoff' as Unix timestamp).

  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: 'Extract reviews from Google Maps places using Outscraper.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('reviews from Google Maps places'), and method ('using Outscraper'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'google_maps_search', which likely searches for places rather than extracting reviews.

  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 mentions the sibling tool 'google_maps_search' in the context signals, but the description itself offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons. Usage is implied through the purpose statement but lacks actionable guidance.

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

• google_maps_searchA
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool uses Outscraper and returns formatted results, but lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with 6 parameters, this is insufficient 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns), uses bullet-like formatting for parameters, and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, with 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers purpose and parameters well but has significant gaps. It lacks behavioral context (rate limits, auth), doesn't explain the return format beyond 'formatted search results', and provides no error handling information. The parameter coverage is excellent, but other aspects are incomplete.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for all 6 parameters. Each parameter gets practical examples (e.g., query examples), default values, constraints (max limit), and usage context (e.g., what enrichment services do). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

  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 businesses and places on Google Maps using Outscraper, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('businesses and places on Google Maps'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool google_maps_reviews by focusing on search rather than reviews. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling beyond the different function.

  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 through the purpose statement and parameter explanations, suggesting it's for finding businesses/places. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like the sibling google_maps_reviews) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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