Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool's purpose and engine, without mentioning output format, result limits, rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. There is zero behavioral disclosure beyond the basic function, so the score is 1.

  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 sentence that immediately states the core function, avoiding any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema, containing only the essential purpose information. This exemplifies conciseness.

  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?

  Despite a detailed schema, the description omits contextual information such as what the tool returns (e.g., search results), how it behaves with defaults, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least indicate that results are returned, but it doesn't. The tool has 9 parameters and no additional context, making this incomplete for an agent selecting and invoking it correctly.

  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 each of the 9 parameters described with types, defaults, and meaning. Per the scoring guidelines, this warrants a baseline of 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter details. The description does not compensate or add any information, but the schema is sufficient, so the score stays at 3.

  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 action ('Search the web') and specifies the underlying technology (SearXNG metasearch engine), making the purpose immediately understandable. Although it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools 'crawl' and 'crawl_site', the verb 'search' naturally distinguishes it from crawling activities, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

  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 the sibling tools 'crawl' or 'crawl_site'. It does not mention alternative scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool's name. This absence of any context or comparison results in a low score.

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

• crawlB
  3.1/5.0
  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 only states what the tool does functionally, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any limitations. For a crawler that might hit external sites, this transparency gap is significant.

  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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted language, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

  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?

  The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, but the input schema is thorough. The description is minimal, yet combined with the schema it provides enough to invoke the tool. However, it lacks any context about output structure, error behavior, or when to choose this over crawl_site, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding on usage.

  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 has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter meanings, so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely echoing the markdown/JSON choice already present in output_format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Crawl one or more URLs and extract content as markdown or JSON.' This distinguishes it from search and is reasonably specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool crawl_site, so it misses the full differentiation.

  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 vs alternatives. It does not mention appropriate use cases, exclusions, or when to prefer crawl_site or search. The extensive parameter descriptions in the schema do not compensate for this lack of contextual usage guidance.

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

• crawl_siteB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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, but it only mentions the DFS traversal strategy. It does not disclose potential impacts (e.g., rate limits, resource consumption), authentication requirements, the meaning of 'entire website' (same-domain vs. subdomains), or what the output will look like. This is insufficient for a crawler that can visit many pages.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key strategy. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

  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?

  The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one line. It does not explain what the return value looks like, any limits or side effects, or how the parameters relate to the crawling process. For a complex tool like this, the description is notably 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 already provides detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies — it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

  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 uses a specific verb ('crawl'), a concrete resource ('entire website'), and a strategy ('DFS'), which clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool named 'crawl', leaving ambiguity about how they differ.

  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 the tool is for crawling entire websites via DFS, giving some context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the 'crawl' or 'search' sibling tools, and it offers no exclusions or alternative guidance. The presence of a sibling named 'crawl' makes this gap more noticeable.

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