Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_crawlC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals breadth-first crawling, that external links are ignored, and that server-enforced caps override requested depth/page values. However, it does not describe request impact, rate limits, robots.txt behavior, or what the return payload looks like.

  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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides useful behavioral constraints without padding. It could slightly expand on parameters, but it is appropriately concise for what it covers.

  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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description should do more to complete the picture. It covers basic crawling boundaries but omits return format, parameter meaning for most inputs, and operational behavior around robots or page content.

  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. It adds meaning to max_depth and max_pages by mentioning depth/pages and server caps, but it does not explain required parameter url, per_page_chars, or respect_robots. With five parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

  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 and resource: 'Crawl a bounded set of internal pages from one public website.' It clarifies scope by noting external links are not followed, which helps distinguish it from web_fetch and web_search even though no sibling is named explicitly.

  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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use web_crawl versus web_fetch, web_extract, or web_search. The description implies the tool is for traversing internal pages, but it does not state when the alternatives are preferable or provide exclusion criteria.

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

• web_fetchB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it reveals a three-stage fetch strategy (static fetch, Crawl4AI JavaScript rendering, Scrapling stealth fallback) and the Markdown output format. It does not cover failure behavior, but this is a read-only fetch tool and the disclosed behavior is substantive.

  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 tight sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the render guidance earns its place without redundancy.

  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 description covers the tool's core behavior and render parameter well, but it omits semantics for selector and max_chars, and does not describe failure/error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave the agent with reasonable but incomplete context.

  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?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the render parameter by explaining 'auto' escalation and 'always' for JS-heavy pages, but selector and max_chars are not explained at all, leaving their semantics ambiguous.

  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 verb and resource: 'Read one public HTTP(S) URL and return clean LLM-friendly Markdown.' The word 'one' differentiates it from web_crawl, though sibling tools are not explicitly named.

  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 gives good guidance on when to use render='always' vs 'auto', but provides no explicit direction on when to choose web_fetch over siblings like web_crawl, web_extract, or web_search. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• web_extractA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose useful behaviors: omitted attribute returns visible text, and auto mode tries static HTTP, then dynamic browser, then stealth. However, it omits output shape, error behavior, rate limits, and other operational details.

  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?

  Two focused sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral details about attribute and auto-mode each earn their 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?

  The description covers core invocation details and two key defaults, making it usable for basic calls. But there is no output schema, no description of the result format, no limit semantics, and no sibling differentiation, leaving several operational aspects to inference.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for selector, attribute, and mode, but url and limit remain unexplained. This is partial compensation rather than full coverage.

  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 precise operation: 'Extract repeated elements from a public webpage using a CSS selector.' It clearly identifies the verb, resource, and method, and this is enough to distinguish it from siblings like web_fetch, web_crawl, and web_search.

  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 intended context is implied by 'Extract repeated elements from a public webpage,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use cases are mentioned.

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

• web_searchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the FIRECRAWL_API_KEY requirement and explains what category and time_filter do. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or what happens on missing/invalid keys. This is a moderate gap for a tool with zero annotations.

  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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the API key requirement plus category/time_filter semantics fit in minimal space. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to make a basic call: it knows a query is required and can optionally narrow by category or time range. It misses minor details like the nature of the return results, but the default limit and self-explanatory query make it adequately complete.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to the cryptic enum values: category 'can target GitHub/research/PDF/developer sources' and time_filter 'limits results to the past hour/day/week/month/year.' Query and limit are not described, but they are self-explanatory and have clear schema defaults.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the public web through Firecrawl.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like web_fetch, web_crawl, and web_extract, which all imply different operations. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

  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 gives helpful context on optional parameters (category and time_filter) but never explicitly states when to use web_search versus its siblings. An agent can infer from the tool name and sibling names, but there is no direct guidance such as 'use this instead of web_fetch when...'.

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