Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hd_productA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It describes the output comprehensively but does not mention side effects (likely none), authorization needs, rate limits, or error scenarios. This is adequate for a read-only tool but lacks full transparency.

  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 that front-loads the primary action and then lists outputs concisely. It is efficient without unnecessary words. Slightly longer due to detail, but still well-structured.

  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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields well and references a sibling tool (hd_search) for input. However, it lacks information on error handling (e.g., invalid SKU) or any prerequisites beyond the SKU. This is adequate but could be more 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by providing usage context (e.g., SKU from hd_search, postal code overrides storeId, default storeId). This enhances comprehension beyond the schema alone.

  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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('full product card for a Home Depot Canada SKU'), and details the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hd_search (which is for searching) and hd_store_availability (likely for specific availability).

  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 use after obtaining a SKU, especially via the sku parameter example 'from hd_search results'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it. More explicit guidance would improve selection accuracy.

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

• hd_searchA
  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 return fields (SKU, name, brand, etc.) and pagination behavior, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. The implied read-only nature of 'search' is reasonable but not explicit.

  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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and lists return fields; the second provides a key usage hint. Every word contributes 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?

  Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (SKU, name, brand, model, price, rating, online stock, URL, image) and mentions total count, filters, and sort options. It covers pagination with `page`. Missing details on error handling or defaults, but sufficient for a typical search tool.

  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 input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond schema. It provides a pagination hint ('Use `page` to paginate'), which is mildly helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the load.

  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 searches Home Depot Canada for products by keyword, providing a specific verb and resource. It lists the return fields (SKU, name, brand, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hd_product (single product details) and hd_stores (store info).

  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 specifies when to use the tool: to search for products by keyword. It mentions pagination with `page`, implying its use for browsing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, though the sibling names are distinct enough to infer.

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

• hd_store_availabilityA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 explains the return values (store name, address, phone, coordinates, stock level/status, aisle/bay, pickup status) and sorting (in-stock first). It also notes that nearby stores are derived from postalCode or storeId, with override logic. No destructive actions are implied, and the read-only nature is clear.

  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: the first defines the tool's action and output, the second provides a use case. It is front-loaded with essential information, contains no filler, and is optimally concise.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description adequately covers return fields, sorting, and parameter interactions. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficient 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?

  The schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the default for storeId (7074) and explaining that postalCode overrides storeId, which is not in the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter relationships.

  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 for a SKU across a store and nearby stores, returning detailed per-store information. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('in-store stock of a Home Depot Canada SKU'), and the purpose is distinct from siblings (hd_product, hd_search, hd_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 advises using the tool to answer 'which store has this in stock near me', which gives clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply those boundaries.

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

• hd_storesA
  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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns store details including IDs, addresses, and fulfillment eligibility, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but the behavior is transparent enough for a listing tool.

  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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then expanding on variations and output. Every word 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?

  Given no output schema, the description enumerates return fields (id, name, address, etc.) and mentions behavior for proximity search. It lacks details on pagination or error responses, but for a straightforward list tool, it is sufficiently 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that postalCode returns nearest stores with distanceKm, and that limit defaults differ per mode. This goes beyond schema descriptions, justifying a 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 explicitly states it lists Home Depot Canada stores, with two modes (with/without postalCode), and directly relates to finding store IDs for sibling tools hd_product and hd_store_availability, distinguishing its purpose.

  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 when to use postalCode (nearest stores) and when to omit (full directory), and mentions its utility for other tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like hd_search or hd_store_availability, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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