Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetchC
  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. It mentions internet access and optional markdown extraction, but fails to detail critical behaviors such as error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when max_length is exceeded. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is not front-loaded efficiently; the first sentence is clear, but the second sentence adds redundant historical context about internet access that doesn't aid tool selection or invocation. This extra information reduces conciseness without adding practical value for the agent.

  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 (internet fetching with multiple parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in varied contexts.

  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, providing clear details for all four parameters (url, max_length, start_index, raw). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that 'extracts its contents as markdown' relates to the raw parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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: 'Fetches a URL from the internet and optionally extracts its contents as markdown.' It specifies the verb ('fetches') and resource ('URL'), and distinguishes between fetching and optional markdown extraction. However, since there are no sibling tools, the differentiation aspect is not applicable, preventing 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides implied usage guidance by explaining that the tool grants internet access, which was previously unavailable, and suggests using it for up-to-date information. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other data retrieval methods) or any exclusions, making it somewhat vague.

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