Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• deep_researchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'deep research' with 'content extraction and analysis', hinting at a potentially resource-intensive or iterative process, but fails to detail critical aspects like execution time, rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('perform deep research') and key features ('content extraction and analysis') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the research methodology, output format, error conditions, or performance characteristics, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively. The high parameter count and absence of output schema demand more contextual information than provided.

  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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions and constraints (e.g., 'maxDepth' with min/max 1-2). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a research process, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or detracting from the schema's 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('perform deep research') and key activities ('content extraction and analysis'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'parallel_search' and 'visit_page' that likely have different scopes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings in terms of depth or methodology, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 alternatives like 'parallel_search' or 'visit_page', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• parallel_searchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'parallel' execution but doesn't describe rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a tool that performs multiple external operations, this is a significant gap.

  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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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?

  For a tool that performs multiple external operations with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any constraints beyond parallelism. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output format.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 the action ('Perform multiple Google searches') and the key characteristic ('in parallel'), which distinguishes it from basic search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deep_research' or 'visit_page' beyond the parallelism aspect.

  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 alternatives like 'deep_research' or 'visit_page'. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or limitations beyond what's implied by the name and parameters.

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

• visit_pageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'visit' and 'extract' imply read-only operations, it doesn't specify important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, timeout behavior, content format returned, error handling, or whether it follows redirects. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 extremely concise with just 7 words that directly state the tool's function. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

  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?

  For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that likely serve related purposes, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'extract its content' means in practice, what format the content returns in, how it handles different content types, or how it differs from the research/search siblings.

  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% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'url'. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('visit') and resource ('webpage'), and specifies the action ('extract its content'). It distinguishes itself from potential siblings by focusing on single-page content extraction rather than research or parallel operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  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 'deep_research' or 'parallel_search'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between these options.

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