Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searxng_web_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: 'Calls an external SearXNG instance; availability depends on the SEARXNG_URL configuration.' It also warns about the exact parameter name. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 concise with 4 sentences, each adding value. It starts with the main purpose, then includes a critical note, behavior, usage tips, and follow-up suggestion. No wasted words.

  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 return value (list of results with title, URL, snippet), external dependency, pagination, and narrowing options. It does not mention error handling or empty results, but given the simple output, it is largely complete.

  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 parameters. The description reinforces the required parameter name and gives usage context for pageno, time_range, and language, but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema.

  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 purpose: 'Searches the web using SearXNG and returns a list of results...' It specifies the return structure (title, URL, content snippet) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'web_url_read' by suggesting follow-up for full text.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool (for web search) and suggests using the sibling 'web_url_read' for full text retrieval. It also gives tips on pagination and narrowing scope with time_range and language, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

• web_url_readA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds error handling behavior (returns error string on failure) and mode details, which is valuable beyond annotations.

  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?

  Concise 4-sentence paragraph. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but every sentence is informative.

  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?

  Covers modes, error handling, usage advice. No output schema, but return value (markdown text) is implied. Sufficient for a read-only tool with good annotations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description explains how parameters work together (three modes: omit filtering, use startChar/maxLength for pagination, section for section extraction, readHeadings exclusive). Adds contextual meaning beyond schema.

  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 fetches a URL and returns text content converted to markdown, and distinguishes three modes. It differentiates from the sibling searxng_web_search (search vs. read).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Use after searxng_web_search to read the full content of individual result URLs.' Describes three mutually exclusive modes, guiding the agent on when to use each.

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