Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ct_productA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It describes what the tool returns (price, stock, etc.) but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or latency. It is adequate but not enhanced.

  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 long sentence that packs many details. It is still concise and front-loads the main purpose, but could be slightly easier to parse if broken into multiple sentences. Minor readability trade-off.

  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?

  Given the lack of output schema, the description does a good job listing the return fields (name, brand, price, stock, fulfillment, etc.). It does not cover output format or error handling, but the listed detail is sufficient for most decision-making.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds context beyond the schema, e.g., clarifying that sku is a product code from ct_search results and that postalCode overrides storeId. This adds value without being verbose.

  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 fetches a full product card for a Canadian Tire SKU, listing many specific data points. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ct_search (search) and ct_store_availability (stock check) by focusing on comprehensive single-product details.

  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 implies usage when you have a SKU and need complete product info for a specific store. It mentions 'given a store' but does not explicitly state when not to use or how to obtain the SKU (though the SKU parameter example references ct_search results). Good but could be more explicit about prerequisites.

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

• ct_store_availabilityA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description details the tool's behavior: returns sorted list, includes online stock, and lists output fields. It does not disclose potential side effects or authorization needs, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output summary, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

  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 explains output structure and usage context well. Missing details on error handling or data freshness, but overall adequate given no output schema.

  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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds overall context (e.g., sorting, online stock) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter meaning beyond the schema, maintaining baseline.

  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 checks in-store stock of a Canadian Tire SKU across nearby stores, listing returned fields and sorting. It directly addresses a user question, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like ct_product, ct_search, and ct_stores.

  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 explicitly says to use it to answer 'which store has this in stock near me', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, missing some guidance against sibling tools.

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

• ct_storesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the output structure, sorting by distance, and includes distanceKm. It does not mention destructive or side effects, which is appropriate for read-only behavior.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output details, followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

  Covers input options (postal code/coordinates), output fields, and usage for sibling tools. Missing details on authentication or rate limits, but adequate for typical use.

  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 100%, with each parameter having clear descriptions. The tool description adds context like 'sorted by distance' but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

  The description explicitly states the tool finds Canadian Tire stores nearest to a location, sorted by distance, and lists the output fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings (ct_product, ct_search, ct_store_availability) by focusing on store finding.

  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 provides clear guidance by stating 'Use to find a store id for ct_product / ct_store_availability,' linking to sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the use case is well-defined.

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

• ct_searchA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 the return fields (SKU, name, price, stock, etc.), total count, filters, and sort options, implying read-only behavior. No side effects are mentioned, but the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 three sentences: purpose, return fields, and special behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

  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?

  Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality: search, pagination, category redirects, and return fields. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but it is complete enough for typical use.

  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?

  Input schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains how to use 'page' for pagination and describes the 'categoryRedirectUrl' field. This provides meaningful context on usage.

  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 'Search Canadian Tire... for products by keyword.' The verb is specific (search), the resource is defined (Canadian Tire products), and it distinguishes from sibling tools (ct_product for single product, ct_store_availability for stock, ct_stores for store list).

  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 explains how to use it: search by keyword, paginate with 'page', and notes category redirect behavior. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives (e.g., use ct_product for specific product details), but the context is clear.

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