Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_flightsD
  1.9/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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 but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what rate limits might apply, what format results are returned in, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a search tool that likely interacts with external APIs, this lack of transparency is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about important operational aspects.

  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 maximally concise at just 6 words. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, every word earns its place - 'Search' indicates the action, 'for flights' specifies the resource, and 'based on parameters' acknowledges the input requirements. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing, making it efficiently front-loaded despite its brevity.

  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 complexity of flight search (11 parameters with nested objects, multiple flight types, and sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. While the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, it fails to provide context about the tool's scope, limitations, or relationship to other tools. With no annotations and minimal description, the agent lacks crucial information needed to use this tool effectively in context with 'search_multi_city' and 'get_offer_details'.

  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?

  The description states 'based on parameters' but provides zero information about what those parameters are or their semantics. With schema description coverage at 0% (the schema has descriptions but they're not counted in coverage), the description fails to compensate by explaining any of the 11 parameters documented in the schema. The agent must rely entirely on the schema to understand parameters like 'type', 'origin', 'destination', 'departure_date', etc., with no high-level guidance from the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Search for flights based on parameters' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'search_flights' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the general action (search) and resource (flights), it lacks specificity about what kind of search this performs or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search_multi_city'. The description doesn't provide meaningful differentiation from what the name already conveys.

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

  Usage Guidelines1/5

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

  The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_multi_city' and 'get_offer_details' available, the agent receives no indication whether this is the primary search tool, whether it's for simple searches while 'search_multi_city' handles complex itineraries, or any prerequisites or constraints. The description offers zero contextual usage information.

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

• search_multi_cityC
  2.7/5.0
  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 mentions 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., flight options, prices). For a complex search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

  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?

  Extremely concise with a single sentence ('Search for multi-city flights.'). It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core function.

  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 (multi-city flight search with 1 parameter containing nested objects), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on usage, behavior, and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify purpose. For a search tool with rich schema but no annotations, more guidance is needed.

  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 0%, but the input schema has detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Flight segments', 'Departure date (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate for the 0% coverage with any additional context.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Search for multi-city flights' states the basic action (search) and resource (multi-city flights), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling 'search_flights'. It doesn't specify what 'search' entails (e.g., finding available flights, prices, routes) or how multi-city differs from other flight types.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus 'search_flights' or 'get_offer_details'. The description implies usage for multi-city flights but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints (e.g., minimum segments), or alternatives. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks context for tool selection.

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

• get_offer_detailsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond the input schema. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

  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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 tool has an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and one parameter, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent use despite the output schema's support.

  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 description mentions 'a specific flight offer', which aligns with the 'offer_id' parameter in the input schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the parameter identifies an offer, but doesn't explain format, source, or constraints, offering only basic compensation for the low coverage.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific flight offer', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_flights' or 'search_multi_city', which appear to be search operations rather than detail retrieval for a specific offer.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an offer ID from a previous search, or clarify that it's for retrieving details of a single, pre-identified offer rather than searching for new ones.

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