Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query_webpage_dataB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose critical behaviors such as whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. Important details like what happens if both url and html are given are omitted.

  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 19-word sentence that packs the core purpose and data source options. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

  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?

  With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits what the output looks like, error scenarios, and behavioral nuances. A more comprehensive description is needed for this complex tool.

  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 100%, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'AgentQL query or natural language prompt' is already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any missing schema detail.

  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 'Extracts structured data from a webpage' using a query or prompt, and specifies data sources (URL or raw HTML). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_browser_session.

  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 data extraction but does not explicitly compare with siblings or give when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions query vs prompt options, which helps, but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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

• list_session_usageA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 correctly identifies a paginated read operation with optional filtering, but lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., default limit, total count) or any rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the key action and resource, and efficiently lists the optional filters.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description should explain what each session usage record contains, but it does not. It also omits pagination details like how to iterate or interpret paginated responses. The tool is adequately described for its input, but incomplete for expected output.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, simply summarizing the filter categories (user, session, time range, status) that are already in the parameter 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 tool retrieves a paginated list of session usage records for the authenticated user, with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like create_browser_session (creates sessions) and query_webpage_data (queries page data).

  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 mentions the tool is for the authenticated user and lists optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide when-not scenarios. The context signals help, but more explicit guidance is missing.

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

• create_browser_sessionA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions configurable lifecycle settings and return of session details but lacks disclosure of side effects, destruction behavior, or authentication requirements. Basic transparency but not deep.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundant information. Every word adds value.

  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 6 parameters (all described), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief. It does not detail return values or side effects, which would be helpful for a creation tool that returns connection details. Adequate but leaves gaps.

  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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. The description adds a high-level summary of configurable aspects but does not provide additional meaning beyond what schema already offers.

  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 creates a new Tetra browser session, lists configurable aspects (user agent, profile, proxy, lifecycle), and mentions return value. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about usage and data querying.

  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 vs alternatives or when not to use it. The description only explains what it does without any usage context or exclusion criteria.

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

• get_usageA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must stand alone. It states it retrieves data but omits whether it's read-only, rate limits, or response structure. Basic but not comprehensive.

  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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

  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?

  No output schema, so description should detail return values; it does not specify what 'usage statistics' includes. Also missing idempotency and auth details beyond 'authenticated account'.

  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?

  No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 3 per guidelines since schema covers all; description adds nothing beyond what schema already conveys.

  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 it retrieves API key usage statistics and subscription details, with a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools (browser sessions, webpage data) are distinct, so no confusion.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'useful for monitoring consumption limits and understanding remaining quota', giving clear context. Does not mention when not to use, but siblings are unrelated, so no conflict.

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