Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_by_keywordC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having a 'page' parameter), or what the search results might look like. This leaves the agent with critical gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and target.

  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?

  Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, result format, or usage context. For a search tool with multiple filtering options and pagination, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

  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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'keyword' parameter is central. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical usage examples, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

  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 'Searches for places related to the keyword' clearly states the verb ('searches') and resource ('places'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_by_category' or 'find_coordinates'. It specifies the search is keyword-based, which helps differentiate from category-based search, but doesn't explain how it differs from coordinate-based finding.

  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 like 'search_by_category' or 'find_coordinates'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparative advantages. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• find_coordinatesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('find coordinates') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned coordinates. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., coordinates format, error cases), behavioral traits, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and potential complexity in geocoding, this leaves the agent under-informed.

  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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'page') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond implying the 'address' parameter is used for searching, but doesn't provide additional context like address format examples or pagination behavior, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('coordinates'), and specifies the input ('address'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_place' or 'search_by_category', which might have overlapping functionality for location-related queries.

  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 like 'get_place' or 'search_by_category'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as address format expectations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

• get_placeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches details but doesn't describe the return format, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by listing details more clearly). Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., structure of details like reviews or photos), error cases, or behavioral traits. For a tool that fetches potentially complex data, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

  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, fully documenting the single parameter 'place_id' with its description, type, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for obtaining the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 clearly states the action ('fetches details') and resource ('a place'), specifying what information is retrieved (name, address, reviews, photos, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_coordinates' or 'search_by_category' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific place rather than searching or locating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings that might also fetch place details, keeping it at 4.

  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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a place_id from search results), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_by_keyword' for initial lookup. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

• search_by_categoryC
  2.9/5.0
  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 only states the search action without detailing aspects like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively in context with its siblings.

  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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing usage examples. However, since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 clearly states the verb ('searches for') and resource ('places') with a specific criterion ('matching category group code'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_keyword' or 'find_coordinates', which might have overlapping use cases, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

  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 like 'search_by_keyword' or 'find_coordinates'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a center coordinate and radius, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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