Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchB
  3.2/5.0
  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 mentions the tool searches the web and returns formatted text, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a web search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (web search with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters and return format, but lacks behavioral context like limitations or error cases. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' is a search query string and 'num_results' specifies the number of results with a range (1-10) and default (10), clarifying usage that isn't evident from the schema alone. This compensates well for the low 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 as 'Search the web using Google Custom Search,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself by specifying the search engine (Google Custom Search), though with no sibling tools mentioned, full differentiation isn't required. However, it lacks explicit mention of what makes this search unique (e.g., real-time web search vs. internal database).

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations (e.g., internet access required), or scenarios where it's most appropriate. With no sibling tools, some context is implied, but explicit usage instructions are missing.

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