Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_offerB
  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 must disclose behavior on its own. It does list returned fields, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what force_refresh does, or what errors or limitations may occur. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

  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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that names the operation first and then enumerates the returned data. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted wording.

  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?

  An output schema exists, so return values are partly covered, but the description still omits force_refresh semantics, any relationship to search_offers, and behavioral requirements such as authentication. For a tool with no annotations, this is not enough for an agent to reliably select and invoke it.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only restates that the lot is looked up by URL. It says nothing about force_refresh, which is left to be inferred solely from its name and default value. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

  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 identifies a specific action and resource: retrieving a detailed offer card by URL, and lists the concrete fields returned (price, area, floor, metro, house type, year, description, photos, price history). It does not explicitly contrast it with search_offers, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

  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 should be used when you already have a URL for a specific lot, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus search_offers and no prerequisites such as authentication. The usage context is present but implicit.

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

• search_offersB
  3.4/5.0
  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 discloses only the basic return type (list with URL and key facts) but omits behaviors such as pagination, sorting, data freshness, or side effects.

  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 and resource, no redundant wording.

  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?

  The output schema covers return structure, but the description does not address pagination behavior, filter semantics, or whether authentication is required, leaving some gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0% and none of the ten parameters are explained; while names like price_min and area_max are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantics, units, or validation details 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?

  Description states a specific action (search) on a specific resource (apartment sale listings on Cian) and notes that it returns a list of lots with URL and key facts, distinguishing it from single-offer retrieval.

  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 filtered list searches through the verb 'search' and 'returns a list', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_offer or mention any exclusions.

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

• auth_loginA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full transparency. It discloses that the browser is visible (not headless), requires manual user interaction (phone and SMS), and persists the session to a local profile. It does not mention error handling or failure modes, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

  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 concise and well-structured, using only two sentences to convey the action, method, and outcome. There is no unnecessary detail or ambiguity.

  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?

  The description provides sufficient context for a login action, including the interaction model and session persistence. It does not mention the output schema, but that is likely defined elsewhere; overall, it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to elaborate on. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, meriting a neutral baseline score. The description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist.

  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: opening a visible browser for manual login to cian.ru via phone and SMS. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (auth_status, search_offers, get_offer) by being the explicit authentication action, while the others focus on status or searching.

  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 when to use the tool—when manual login is needed—but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as auth_status for checking existing sessions. The usage context is inferable from the name and sibling set, but not stated directly.

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

• auth_statusA
  4/5.0
  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 discloses that this is a read-only status check and does not suggest mutation, but it does not state that there are no side effects, whether authentication is required to call it, or how errors are handled. The output schema likely covers the return shape.

  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 that conveys the full purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter status endpoint.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could additionally point to auth_login for the login flow or explicitly state that it can be called before other Cian tools, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool.

  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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly implies no input is required beyond the current session context.

  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 a specific action ('reports') and resource ('whether the current Cian session is authorized'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like auth_login, search_offers, and get_offer because it identifies the exact piece of information being returned.

  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 intended use is implied: check whether the current session is authenticated, likely before working with offers. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over auth_login or when to call it relative to other tools.

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