Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query_domain_detailA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists returned data, omitting side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if domain not found). Does not indicate whether the operation is read-only or has impact.

  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, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose and details. Every word 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?

  For a simple detail query with no output schema, description enumerates key data categories (registrant, expiration, verification, DNS, management status) that an agent would need. Lacks mention of possible response format or pagination, but given single parameter, it's nearly complete.

  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 parameter description '要查询的域名，例如: example.com'. Description adds example but no additional semantics beyond what schema already provides. Baseline score 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?

  Description clearly states the verb (query) and resource (domain detail), listing specific data fields (registrant info, expiration, verification, DNS, management status). It distinguishes from siblings: check_domain and list_domains differ in scope, create_order is unrelated.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies usage for getting details of a specific domain, but does not provide alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but not explicit.

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

• check_domainA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values (availability, premium flag, reason) and mentions the source (Alibaba Cloud), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read‑only or non‑destructive. The behavioral context is adequate but not fully transparent.

  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 efficiently conveys the purpose, the backend (Alibaba Cloud), and the return structure. Every word serves a purpose; no filler or redundancy.

  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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the provider, and key return fields. It could mention that the operation does not register or modify anything, but that is largely implied.

  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?

  All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond the schema definitions.

  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 checks domain registration availability via Alibaba Cloud and specifies the returned information (status, premium flag, reasons for unavailability). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like query_domain_detail or create_order.

  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 checking domain availability but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.

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

• list_domainsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses the output fields (domain, expiration time, status, review info) and mentions pagination and filtering, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover side effects, rate limits, or response structure beyond what is listed.

  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 primary action and key features. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

  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 lack of output schema, the description compensates by listing displayed fields (domain, expiration time, status, review info). It covers pagination and search, which are the main features. However, it omits details like total count, sorting, or response format, though these are somewhat implicit for a list 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the purpose of pagination and keyword search, adding high-level context but not providing additional details beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions (e.g., default values, max page size). No parameter semantics are clarified further.

  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 lists all domains under the Alibaba Cloud account, with explicit support for pagination and keyword search. It specifies the displayed fields (domain, expiration time, status, review info), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings that likely target individual domain details or other actions.

  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 domain listing scenarios but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like check_domain or query_domain_detail. There are no when-not instructions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and title alone.

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

• create_orderA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It warns about payment involvement and the need for a registrant profile ID, but does not disclose post-order behavior, failure modes, or whether the operation is synchronous.

  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 with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose and critical warning, second sentence lists prerequisite and suggestion. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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 complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no explanation of return value, payment process, or error handling. Sibling tools provide some context.

  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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by emphasizing the registrantProfileId must be pre-created and suggesting prior domain check, but does not elaborate on parameter values beyond the schema.

  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 purpose: '创建域名注册订单' (create domain registration order). It distinguishes from siblings (check_domain, query_domain_detail, list_domains) by being the only order creation tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description recommends first using check_domain to confirm registrability, providing a clear usage context. It implies when to use this tool, though lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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