Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_servicesB
  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 full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, pagination behavior, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description only covers the basic operation.

  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 concise with two sentences, no extraneous content, and front-loads key information. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate guidelines.

  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 two parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks details on result format, sorting, pagination, or how to combine with sibling tools. It is insufficient for a search tool needing completeness.

  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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value for the 'query' parameter by showing example usage, but does not add any additional meaning for 'max_price_cents'. Overall, 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 that the tool performs semantic search across AgentStorefront listings, using a natural-language query. It provides concrete examples, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like list_services (browsing) and get_service (specific service).

  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 advises using natural-language queries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. It implies usage for flexible search but lacks clear when-to-use guidance.

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

• request_quoteB
  3.4/5.0
  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 mentions return values (cost, throughput, subscription URL) but fails to disclose whether the action is read-only or has side effects (e.g., creating a quote record), authentication needs, or error handling.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or wasted space.

  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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important details such as parameter formats, validation, side effects, and what happens on failure. It is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently.

  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 33% (only email has a description). The description adds context for expected_calls_per_month by mentioning 'specific call volume', but it does not clarify service_id (likely a service identifier) or email's role beyond 'optional contact'. It provides some added value but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

  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 ('request a quote') and resource ('for using a service at a specific call volume'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_service, list_services, search_services) which focus on retrieving service information rather than generating quotes.

  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 obtaining cost estimates based on call volume, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• list_servicesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description implies a safe read operation ('list') and suggests no side effects. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or any potential restrictions. Basic behavioral context is present but not rich.

  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?

  Two sentences, no superfluous words. Front-loaded with purpose and return information. Every sentence adds value.

  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 no output schema, the description briefly states return fields. For a simple list tool, this is mostly sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of sorting or order, but acceptable for the complexity level.

  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 descriptions already document both parameters. The tool description adds 'Optionally filter by category' which mirrors the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

  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?

  Description clearly states 'List AgentStorefront services' with specific verb+resource and mentions return fields (names, prices, descriptions). This differentiates it from siblings like get_service (single item) and search_services (search).

  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 indicates optional filter by category but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_services. The context is clear enough for a simple list, but lacks when-not guidance.

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

• get_serviceA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what the tool returns (schema, pricing, etc.) and implies a read-only operation by using 'Get'. More detail on auth or rate limits would raise score, but current disclosure is adequate for a simple 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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with action and object, includes specific data details. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Tool has one simple parameter, no output schema, but description enumerates return fields (schema, pricing, etc.) sufficiently. All necessary context for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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?

  Only one parameter 'service_id' with schema description already clear ('UUID or slug'). Description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

  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?

  Description specifies 'Get full details on a single AgentStorefront service' and lists specific data fields (schema, pricing, rate limits, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings list_services and search_services, which are for listing and searching, and request_quote, which is for quoting.

  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?

  Usage is implied by contrasting with siblings (list_services and search_services for broader retrieval, request_quote for quoting). However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements are provided.

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