Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_pricingA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Return', but does not disclose what exactly is returned (e.g., URL, object), or whether any authentication or rate limits apply. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth beyond the basic action.

  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 states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and effectively conveys the core functionality in a front-loaded manner.

  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 tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description is somewhat ambiguous: 'canonical pricing entry point' could mean a URL, a set of pricing details, or an internal identifier. Without an output schema or further explanation, the agent may not know what to expect from the return value, leaving a notable gap in completeness.

  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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema leaves nothing to clarify. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required.

  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 states the tool returns the canonical pricing entry point for Tiramisu AI, using a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('pricing entry point'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_site_overview and get_official_links, which handle other aspects of the site.

  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 alternative tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool's name and purpose, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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

• get_official_linksA
  4.2/5.0
  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. It does convey a read-only intent via 'Return' and nuances availability with 'when available.' However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, empty results, or return format details, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a tool without annotations or an output schema.

  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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and object without superfluous words. All information is relevant and directly supports tool selection.

  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, zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the return type and distinguishes the tool from siblings, but the exact structure of the returned 'list' (e.g., plain strings vs objects with labels/URLs) is not specified, which is a minor gap.

  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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, a zero-param tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds contextual value by specifying the scope (Tiramisu AI) and content (website, support, docs).

  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 specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('canonical list of official links for Tiramisu AI'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by the data type (links vs overview vs pricing), making its purpose unmistakable.

  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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when official links are needed), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the sibling names are visible in context, the differentiation is clear, but the text itself stops short of explicit exclusions.

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

• get_site_overviewA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The terms 'canonical' and 'authoritative' add meaningful context that the tool returns a definitive, unfiltered view, which is valuable. It does not discuss potential limitations (e.g., caching, data format), but for a parameterless read operation this is adequate.

  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 states the action, the resource, and the rationale. It contains no wasteful filler, and the parenthetical 'Tiramisu AI' is minor and does not detract from clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a parameterless, straightforward retrieval tool, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned and why. There is no output schema, but the description's explicit mention of 'canonical site overview' and 'authoritative product context' makes the tool's role clear and complete.

  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, and the schema already provides full coverage (empty properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline score for 0 params is 4.

  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 'Return' and identifies the resource 'canonical site overview', making the tool's function unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_official_links, which target different data.

  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 states the purpose ('so an agent has authoritative product context'), which implies when to use this tool: whenever a definitive overview is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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