Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_eventsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states the action and does not mention pagination, default behavior, response format, rate limits, or requirements. The description is too minimal to convey how the tool behaves beyond 'searching'.

  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 a single sentence with no filler words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is not as information-dense as it could be, relying on generic phrasing, so it doesn't earn a 5.

  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's complexity (8 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't mention what results look like, how pagination works, or any important operational details. The description adds only a basic purpose, leaving agents without crucial context.

  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 high (88%), so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description's 'various criteria' adds no specific parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 a search action over Eventbrite events with filtering criteria, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_event (single event retrieval), get_categories, and get_venue. The phrase 'various criteria' is somewhat generic but the overall purpose is clear and distinct.

  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 'Search' - the tool is for finding events matching criteria, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it vs alternatives or exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• get_eventB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that it returns detailed information, but does not disclose the structure, any read-only guarantee, error behavior, or required authentication. This adds minimal behavioral context 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 9-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or repetition.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the core purpose, but 'detailed information' is vague about what fields are returned. It does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions, so it is minimally sufficient 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 schema fully describes event_id with 100% coverage, and there is only one parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the 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 fetches detailed data for a specific Eventbrite event, with 'specific' implying a single known event rather than a search. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_events, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

  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 retrieving details of an already-known event by ID (as seen in the schema), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over search_events or other siblings. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

• get_venueA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description's 'Get information' signals a read-only operation, but it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or authentication requirements. This is minimal but not misleading.

  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?

  A single clear sentence with no redundant words, perfectly front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place.

  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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could be enhanced by indicating common venue fields returned, but the current description is sufficient for selection and 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 schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter venue_id, and the description adds no additional syntax or format details beyond confirming it's a venue ID. The description's 'specific venue' aligns with the schema but offers no extra insight.

  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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'specific Eventbrite venue', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_events and get_categories. It also specifies the scope ('specific') implying retrieval by ID.

  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 when a specific venue ID is known, but it provides no explicit comparison to siblings or exclusions. It doesn't mention when to use search_events instead or any prerequisites.

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

• get_categoriesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action (get) and resource, with no disclosure of authentication requirements, pagination, return format, or any side effects. For a read-only list operation, minimal behavior is implied, but the description adds no extra context beyond the tool name itself.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

  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 simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about what the list contains or whether any filtering or localisation is possible. The description is sufficient for a trivial tool but leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no schema semantics to clarify. The description sufficiently indicates the operation's purpose without needing to explain parameters.

  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 uses a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'a list of Eventbrite event categories'. This unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools (search_events, get_event, get_venue) which focus on events or venues.

  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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving event categories. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated, the sibling tools make the use case obvious. It is implied that this should be used when category data is needed.

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