Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searxng_web_searchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it uses SearXNG API and is for broad searches, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or result format. The description is consistent with annotations but adds minimal new behavioral context.

  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, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary 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?

  Given the well-described input schema and clear annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. However, it omits details about the return format or how results are structured, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Still, for a search tool with openWorldHint, 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only contextualizing usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

  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 performs a web search using the SearXNG API, ideal for general queries, news, articles, and online content. It uses a specific verb ('performs') and resource ('web search'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'web_url_read' by clarifying its broad use case.

  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 when to use: 'for broad information gathering, recent events, or when you need diverse web sources.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the sibling context. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

• web_url_readA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Read the content from an URL' which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

  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 purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word is informative; no fluff or repetition.

  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?

  Given the rich input schema (6 parameters fully described) and the simple read operation, the description is complete enough. No output schema exists but the behavior is straightforward.

  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 6 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'content from an URL', and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'searxng_web_search' by focusing on reading a specific URL rather than searching.

  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 says 'Use this for further information retrieving to understand the content of each URL', which implies usage after a search. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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