Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• netsuite_statusC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. It mentions 'secret-safe' which hints at not exposing sensitive data, but it does not explain what 'local health' includes, whether a network call is made, or what the response looks like. This is minimal and insufficient.

  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 fluff, front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. It is concise and well-structured, though the content under-delivers in clarity.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It does not describe the format of the health result or what happens with the optional parameter. The description is too thin for even a simple 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It only hints at 'optional connection health' but does not explicitly state that check_connection triggers a connection check when true. The parameter meaning is left to inference.

  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 uses the verb 'Return' and identifies 'health' as the resource, giving a basic sense of purpose. However, 'secret-safe local and optional connection health' is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like netsuite_query or netsuite_describe.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where this status check is appropriate.

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

• netsuite_tablesC
  2.6/5.0
  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 does add the context of role-based visibility ('visible to the configured NetSuite role'), which is valuable, but it omits other critical behaviors such as read-only nature, search syntax, and result handling. The term 'bounded' is also unexplained.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse. However, the unclear term 'bounded' slightly reduces clarity, preventing a perfect score.

  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?

  For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain the semantics of the search parameter, the meaning of 'bounded', or the return format. The context provided is minimal, leaving the agent to guess critical operational details.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. Neither 'search' nor 'max_results' is explained in relation to the tool's behavior. The agent receives no information about what constitutes a valid search or how the limit applies.

  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 'Search bounded ODBC metadata visible to the configured NetSuite role' clearly identifies the tool's action (search) and resource (ODBC metadata), and distinguishes it from siblings like netsuite_query and netsuite_describe. However, 'bounded' is vague and the name 'tables' is not explicitly reflected, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning when it is appropriate or when another tool like netsuite_describe would be better. No exclusions or conditional context are given.

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

• netsuite_queryB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses 'read-only' and 'bounded', which are important safety traits, especially given no annotations are provided. However, it does not elaborate on what 'bounded' entails (e.g., row limits, timeout behavior) or the format of results, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

  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 redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key constraints, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  For a tool that executes arbitrary SQL, the description lacks crucial details such as output format, error handling, and specific limit behavior. The vague term 'bounded' and absence of an output schema make the description insufficient for fully understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 schema provides no descriptions, and the tool description only hints at 'bounded' without explaining max_rows or timeout_seconds. It also does not clarify the meaning of the sql parameter, so the description adds minimal value to parameter understanding.

  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 executes a SuiteAnalytics Connect SQL query, with specific qualifiers 'bounded' and 'read-only'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netsuite_tables or netsuite_describe, which serve different purposes.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions under which one should choose a different tool, such as when listing tables or describing metadata, leaving the selection entirely to inference.

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

• netsuite_describeA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses that results are limited to tables/columns visible to the configured NetSuite role, which is a role-based visibility behavior. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., if the table doesn't exist) or the exact return format, and there are no annotations to supplement.

  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, efficient sentence that immediately identifies the tool's action and subject. No filler or redundancy.

  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 single-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the role-scoping constraint. It could add what the returned columns include (e.g., types, names), but is otherwise sufficient.

  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 adds the 'exact' qualifier to the table parameter, indicating that the table name must match precisely. Given the schema has 0% description coverage, this is useful but minimal; it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid NetSuite table name.

  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 'describes columns' for a specific table, and the qualifier 'one exact table' and 'visible to the configured NetSuite role' add specific scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netsuite_tables (listing tables) and netsuite_query (querying data).

  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 simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or referring to sibling tools.

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