Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_official_sourcesB
  3.1/5.0
  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 only states the search action and source scope; it does not reveal the return format, any restrictions, read-only status, or potential side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool name.

  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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it concise and well-structured.

  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 no output schema, so the description should explain what the search returns, but it does not. It also lacks usage guidance and any caveats. Given the simplicity of the tool, more context (e.g., result type, how to interpret results) is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 coverage is 50%: the 'topic' parameter has a description, but 'max_results' does not. The tool description does not explain either parameter's usage, format, or semantics. It merely repeats the concept of 'tema', leaving 'max_results' unexplained and offering no additional meaning beyond the schema.

  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 uses a specific verb ('busca') with a clear resource ('fuentes oficiales y confiables') and scope ('tema de Venezuela'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_claim or get_fakenews_patterns. It tells the agent exactly 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 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 does not mention that it is appropriate for fact-checking or that it should be used before verify_claim/or instead of generating reports. No exclusions or conditional context are given.

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

• generate_factcheck_reportB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action of generating a report. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions or sources, or what the report contains, leaving the agent without crucial behavioral 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no wasted verbiage.

  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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does not fully specify what the 'structured verification report' includes, nor does it explain usage context relative to sibling tools. The description is too minimal to be considered complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without further clarification.

  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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'topic', which already has a description ('Tema o claim principal'). The description adds minimal additional meaning, merely aligning with the schema field. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

  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 clearly states the tool generates a structured verification report for a topic or claim about Venezuela, using a specific verb ('genera') and resource ('reporte estructurado de verificación'). This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_claim, which likely verifies a claim directly, and search_official_sources, which searches sources.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_claim or search_official_sources. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for use, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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

• verify_claimA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (Tavily search + notebook patterns) but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean verdict, evidence summary), whether it makes external API calls, or any side effects/limitations. Some behavioral insight is provided, but not enough for full transparency.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and method. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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?

  There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return values and usage context. It fails to mention what the tool outputs or how to interpret results, which is critical for a verification tool. This leaves a significant gap in completeness.

  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 description need not add much. The description's mention of 'afirmación' aligns with the claim parameter but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's example and context explanation.

  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 clearly states a specific action (verify) on a specific resource (a claim about Venezuela) using a defined method (Tavily search + known notebook patterns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch patterns, search official sources, or generate reports.

  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 implies the tool is for verifying claims about Venezuela, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use search_official_sources for official source verification' or 'use get_fakenews_patterns to fetch patterns first.'

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

• get_fakenews_patternsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns patterns and mentions the Obsidian notebook as the basis, but it does not disclose any side effects, safety profile, or limitations beyond this. It is a simple retrieval statement but lacks richer behavioral 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 a single sentence that starts with the action verb and delivers the core message without extraneous words. It is concise and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate. It specifies the content ('patrones principales de desinformación') and the source ('cuaderno Obsidian'), which gives enough context for an agent to know what to expect. However, it does not describe the return format or any limitations, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly provides no parameter details as there are none to describe.

  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 clearly states the tool returns the main disinformation patterns in Venezuela, using the verb 'devuelve' and specifying the resource (patterns) and scope (Venezuela). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_claim or search_official_sources by focusing on patterns rather than verification or source searching.

  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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_official_sources or generate_factcheck_report. The usage is only implied from the purpose—when one needs disinformation patterns—but no exclusions or alternative references are included.

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