Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_searchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It discloses the search engine, result shape, and the need to fetch full text separately, but it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or failure modes. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

  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?

  Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then define the output, then give follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

  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 read-only search tool, the description covers core invocation, output shape, and the natural next step. However, missing parameter semantics and a lack of caveats about limitations leave minor but real gaps for an agent relying only on this text.

  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%, and the description adds no per-parameter meaning. The query parameter is inferable, but the region format (e.g., 'wt-wt') and the exact effect of max_results are left undefined.

  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 states a specific action and resource: 'Search the web with DuckDuckGo.' It also defines the output as a list of results with title, url and snippet, clearly distinguishing it as a search tool rather than a generic HTTP fetcher.

  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?

  It explicitly instructs the agent to 'Follow up with fetch_url on any result whose full text you need,' which provides a clear condition for using a sibling tool. However, it does not mention when to prefer http_request or provide exclusions for web_search, so it stops short of full coverage.

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

• http_requestA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns the raw response and makes arbitrary requests, which is useful. However, it does not mention that the response may be truncated or limited by max_chars, nor does it discuss error behavior, redirects, or authentication. These are meaningful gaps for an unrestricted HTTP client.

  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 with no filler. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides direct routing guidance. Every word 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 generic HTTP tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It clearly explains what the tool does and when to use it, but leaves key invocation details such as response truncation, parameter roles, and error handling entirely to inference.

  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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention url, method, body, headers, or max_chars by name or explain their semantics. The phrase 'arbitrary HTTP request' loosely implies method and body flexibility, but max_chars is completely unexplained.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Make an arbitrary HTTP request and return the raw response.' It also distinguishes itself from fetch_url by noting that fetch_url is preferred for web pages. This clearly separates the tool from its siblings.

  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?

  The description explicitly says 'Use this for JSON APIs' and provides a direct alternative: 'For reading web pages prefer fetch_url.' This gives an agent a clear decision rule for when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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

• fetch_urlA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses the markdown-conversion behavior and hints that JavaScript-heavy pages are not handled, but it does not explicitly state that JavaScript is not executed, nor does it describe truncation via max_chars, error cases, or request-side effects.

  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?

  Three short sentences, with the core purpose first, usage guidance second, and the conditional fallback last. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

  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 two-parameter fetch tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and a key failure mode. It is slightly incomplete around max_chars semantics and does not mention whether the request is static-only, but it is otherwise sufficient.

  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% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. 'url' is inferable from the first sentence, but 'max_chars' is never explained even though it has a default and likely controls output truncation.

  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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a web page') and states the output format ('main content as markdown'). It also distinguishes itself from the JavaScript-rendering alternative by targeting 'ordinary pages and articles', making the tool's role clear relative to siblings.

  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?

  It explicitly says when to use the tool ('ordinary pages and articles') and provides a concrete fallback condition ('If the result looks empty or is obviously a JavaScript shell, retry with render_page'). This is direct when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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