Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• extract_scraped_infoB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It says it returns a formatted JSON string, but it does not clarify whether the input must match an exact provider name, whether the domain lookup is fuzzy or exact, whether it fails for unscraped sites, or the shape of the returned JSON. These are relevant behavioral gaps.

  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 compact and includes an Args/Returns structure that is easy to scan. It is efficient, though the Returns line is a bit generic and could be shortened without losing value.

  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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema confirming a formatted JSON return, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the relationship to the sibling scrape_websites, nor failure behavior when the identifier is not found, and it lacks any operational context like whether this is a lookup-only operation. These are moderate gaps for an otherwise simple tool.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define the identifier parameter. It defines it as 'The provider name, full URL, or domain to look for', which gives some semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, but it leaves ambiguity about matching semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matches, supported URL formats). It adds value but not enough to fully compensate for zero 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 says it extracts information about a scraped website, which is a clear verb plus resource, and it is distinguishable from its sibling scrape_websites because that tool presumably performs the scraping while this one extracts already-scraped info. It lacks explicit scope detail (what 'information' means), but the core purpose is understandable.

  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 this is for retrieving information from previously scraped websites, and the sibling name scrape_websites hints at the alternative, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer the intended workflow, but the distinction from scrape_websites is not stated.

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

• scrape_websitesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and conveys several real behaviors: content is persisted ('store their content'), api_key falls back to an environment variable when None, formats default to both markdown and html, and the return of only 'successfully scraped' providers implies partial failures are tolerated rather than raised. It omits storage destination, overwrite/idempotency behavior, and rate limits, but the disclosed traits cover the most decision-relevant runtime behaviors.

  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 ~70-word description front-loads the purpose into one sentence and then uses a clean Args/Returns layout. Every line adds information, and nothing duplicates the schema, which contains no descriptions to repeat.

  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?

  All parameters and the return value are specified, which is solid for a three-parameter tool with a nested object. However, the description omits when-to-use guidance relative to extract_scraped_info and leaves 'store their content' ambiguous about where content is persisted and what side effects an agent should expect, so an agent must infer the pipeline relationship.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does for all three parameters: websites is defined as provider_name→URL mappings, formats is constrained to ['markdown', 'html'] with a stated default of both, and api_key's None-means-environment-variable behavior is explained. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Scrape multiple websites using Firecrawl and store their content.' The action is unambiguous, and the mention of storage clarifies that this tool is the ingestion step of a scrape-then-extract pipeline. It does not explicitly name sibling extract_scraped_info, but 'scrape and store' vs. 'extract info' makes the differentiation readily inferable.

  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?

  No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus the sibling extract_scraped_info, nor on whether the two are sequential stages or alternatives. The description covers mechanics but provides no selection context, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the optional api_key, leaving the agent to guess the pipeline relationship.

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