Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_tours_activitiesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It only discloses that 'Prices are converted to USD,' which is a minor behavioral detail. It does not mention how results are sorted, pagination, return format, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a fully transparent description.

  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 long, with the main purpose front-loaded and a single extra detail (USD conversion) appended. No unnecessary words or repetition; every element earns its place.

  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?

  For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and a notable side-effect (USD conversion), but omits expected behaviors like return type or result list characteristics. It is adequate for simple usage but has gaps that an agent might need to probe.

  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 three parameters (radius, latitude, longitude). The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema; it only restates that coordinates are used. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Search for' with a clear resource ('tours and activities') and a precise location scoping ('using latitude and longitude coordinates'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_flights and get_hotels by focusing on tour/activity content.

  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 the tool (when searching for tours/activities at a coordinate) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No direct exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, so usage guidance is merely implied.

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

• get_cityA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose safety and behavior. It states a read-only 'search' operation and lists the data included, implying a safe query with no side effects. However, it does not mention potential edge cases, rate limits, or whether partial matches are allowed, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

  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 that efficiently conveys the action and expected output fields. No filler words or redundant information.

  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 one-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers the search action and the expected data fields. However, it does not clarify whether the result is a single city or a list, and it omits error or not-found behavior. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, so it earns a 4.

  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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter cityName with a clear description. The tool description repeats that a city name is used for searching but adds no additional semantics about format, case sensitivity, or matching behavior, so it does not exceed the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource 'city information', explicitly listing the fields (name, country, region, IATA code, geographic coordinates). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_flights, which focus on flights.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling names imply a context of travel-related queries, but the description itself does not state when city lookup is appropriate or mention alternatives. This is implied usage rather than explicit.

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

• get_flightsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions the search nature and return fields, but lacks details on limits, pagination, error handling, or explicit read-only confirmation. The term 'search' implies a read operation, but more context would be valuable.

  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 states the purpose, the second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

  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?

  For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lists what will be returned but does not address edge cases, usage constraints, or behavior beyond the basic search, leaving some gaps for a 7-parameter 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 7 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 'Search for flight offers between two cities' with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools (city, tours, hotels). It also lists the return fields, making the purpose 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (flight search) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names make the different use cases obvious, so it earns a 4 for clear context without explicit exclusion.

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

• get_hotelsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it returns hotel information but does not disclose any limitations, error handling, authentication needs, or boundary behaviors like filtering by radius. It is not misleading, but it lacks depth beyond the obvious read-only search nature.

  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 that are direct and front-loaded with the core action and key input. No filler or redundancy, earning full credit.

  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 covers the purpose and gives a partial output summary (names, ratings, locations). With 8 parameters, it does not explain how filters interact, but the schema covers them fully. Since there is no output schema, the description's brief return-value note is helpful, though a bit thin for a tool with many optional filters.

  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. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond restating the cityCode usage (already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's function ('Search for hotels in a city using the city's IATA code') and specifies the output ('names, ratings, and locations'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_flights and get_tours_activities by focusing on hotels, making its purpose 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 implies the tool is for hotel searches in a city, which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention conditions like 'use this for hotels, not flights,' so it stops short of a 5.

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