Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_availabilityA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that dates are inclusive and in YYYY-MM-DD format, and that the tool returns 'startable times with the matching provider.' However, it omits details about pagination (despite a limit parameter), default behavior, and what happens when no slots are found. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose. The first sentence covers the main action and date format, while the second adds optional restriction and return type. No unnecessary words.

  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 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return type. However, it lacks details about the output format (structure of 'startable times'), default limit behavior, and error conditions. An agent might need to infer these from context, making it slightly incomplete.

  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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that the date range is inclusive and specifying the date format, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

  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 finds open appointment slots for a service within a date range, distinguishing it from sibling tools like book_appointment, cancel_appointment, list_my_appointments, list_providers, and list_services. The verb 'find' and the resource 'availability' are specific and unambiguous.

  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 the tool: to find open slots for a service in a date range, with an optional providerId restriction. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools implies alternatives for other tasks (e.g., booking or listing appointments). This is sufficient for an AI agent.

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

• book_appointmentA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses that booking is real and subject to cancellation policy. Could add details about side effects or authorization needs, but adequate for basic transparency.

  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?

  Three sentences, each informative. No redundant text. Front-loaded with action and key constraint.

  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?

  Well-covered for a simple 3-param creation tool. Explains dependency on find_availability and real booking status. Missing output description but acceptable without 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 67% with startTime and providerId described. Description adds format and dependency for startTime but not for serviceId or providerId beyond schema. Baseline 3 with marginal value added.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Book an appointment' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like cancel_appointment and find_availability by noting that startTime comes from find_availability.

  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?

  Provides clear context: startTime must be from find_availability, end time computed automatically, creates real booking subject to cancellation policy. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies prerequisite sequencing.

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

• list_providersA
  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 bears full responsibility. It adds context that the list is limited to those who take online bookings, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other potential traits like pagination, ordering, or whether the list is real-time or cached.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and includes the filter as secondary. Every word adds value.

  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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and filter. It could be more complete by mentioning ordering or pagination, but for a list tool with common expectations, it is 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description merely reiterates that the filter is for providers who perform the given serviceId, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 ('List'), the resource ('stylists/providers'), and the context ('who take online bookings'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_services' by specifying providers. The optional filter by serviceId is also mentioned, adding precision.

  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?

  While the description does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool, the purpose is clear enough to distinguish from siblings (e.g., 'book_appointment' is for booking, not listing). The context implies use when you need a list of providers, especially with optional filtering.

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

• cancel_appointmentA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It warns about cancellation fees but does not mention other side effects (e.g., refunds, reversibility, notifications). Adequate but minimal.

  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?

  Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action.

  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?

  No output schema; description does not explain return values or confirmation behavior. Lacks information on success/error handling. Adequate for simple tool but incomplete.

  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?

  Adds context to appointmentId by linking it to list_my_appointments. Reason parameter is already described in schema; description does not add further value. Overall, useful beyond schema for one of two parameters.

  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?

  Clearly states action (cancel), object (appointment), and method (by appointmentId from list_my_appointments). Distinct from sibling tools like book_appointment or find_availability.

  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?

  Implies when to use: after obtaining appointmentId from list_my_appointments. Mentions cancellation fees as a consideration but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

• list_my_appointmentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description provides transparency on the behavioral constraint of listing only upcoming, non-cancelled appointments. It also implies the need for authentication ('signed-in client'). No mention of pagination or error cases, but given simplicity, it's 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?

  Single sentence, no filler. Every word adds value.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't define 'upcoming' time range, but the simple nature and sibling tools provide enough context.

  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?

  Tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4. Description adds no parameter details but none are needed.

  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 verb 'list' and the resource 'appointments', with specific constraints: 'signed-in client's upcoming (non-cancelled)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_availability' and 'list_providers'.

  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 when to use (to see one's own appointments) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For example, no mention that cancelled appointments are excluded, which is a key differentiator.

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

• list_servicesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly ensure no side effects or authorization needs. Adequate for a simple list 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?

  One sentence, front-loaded with the action and output fields, no wasted words.

  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 simple list tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the action and the fields returned.

  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?

  No parameters exist. With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed.

  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 lists bookable services with name, id, price, base duration. It is distinct from sibling tools like book_appointment or list_providers.

  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 for retrieving service information, but does not explicitly exclude when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear given sibling tool names.

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