Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• crawlbit_crawler_watchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that it 'Reads the site's robots.txt' and reports per-crawler statuses, while also stating the limitation that it only reflects robots.txt and not CDN/firewall blocking. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool does and cannot do, though details like response format or rate limits are omitted.

  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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage guidance and a limitation. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler, making it highly 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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a key limitation. While it does not explicitly detail the return format, the phrase 'reports, per crawler, whether it is fully allowed, partially blocked or blocked entirely' gives the agent enough context. A small gap is the lack of mention of any network or rate-limit behaviors, but this is minor for a read-only check.

  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 already provides a full description for the single 'url' parameter ('The site to analyse, e.g. example.com or https://example.com'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as per the calibration rules.

  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 ('Checks') and resource ('whether AI crawlers are allowed to read a site'), enumerates the exact crawlers covered, and clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like offpage_gaps, shopping, and entity_check by focusing on robots.txt-based AI visibility. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description explicitly states when to use it ('when someone asks why AI never mentions their site, or before any other AI-visibility work') and provides a contextual exclusion ('cannot detect blocking done at the CDN or firewall layer'). It does not name alternative tools, but the 'before any other AI-visibility work' phrasing implies this is a prerequisite rather than a competing option, which is sufficient guidance.

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

• crawlbit_entity_checkA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool measures on-site signals only and not web-wide reputation, which is a key behavioral trait. It could add more about return format or side effects, but for a read-only check this is sufficient.

  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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, context, usage, scope. No fluff or redundant repetition.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its limitations. The only gap is not describing the output format, but that is not required for a straightforward check tool.

  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 url parameter, with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds minimal semantics beyond implying the URL is the site to analyse. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 the tool checks whether a brand reads as a clear, consistent AI-recognizable entity, listing specific signals (Organization schema, name, description, logo, sameAs). This is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like offpage gaps or shopping.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this when a brand is confused with another, or described vaguely, in AI answers.' It also excludes external reputation ('not the brand's reputation across the web'), clarifying its scope versus other possible tools.

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

• crawlbit_shoppingA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool inspects published structured data and cannot see private feeds, which is a key limitation. It also names what it evaluates (schema completeness, price, availability, attributes), giving a solid behavioral overview.

  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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second gives usage context, and the third describes a limitation. The description is front-loaded and concise without unnecessary fluff.

  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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool checks and its limitation, which sets appropriate expectations. It doesn't describe return format, but the scope of analysis is clear. For a diagnostic tool with one parameter and clear use cases, this is reasonably complete.

  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 single parameter url is fully described in the schema with examples (example.com or https://example.com), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool checks whether AI shopping agents can find, understand, and recommend products, focusing on schema completeness, price/availability signals, and attributes. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like offpage_gaps or crawler_watch.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly says to use for e-commerce sites, especially Shopify, when products never surface in AI recommendations. Also provides exclusion: it cannot see privately submitted merchant feeds, which helps avoid misuse. No explicit alternatives are named, but the when-to-use guidance is strong.

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

• crawlbit_offpage_gapsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 explicitly states that the tool is non-destructive ('does not publish anything or contact anyone') and describes what it returns ('gaps and priorities'). This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it could mention whether any crawling or network requests are made.

  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 four sentences long, each earning its place: main action, rationale, when-to-use, and behavioral boundary. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential decision-making information: what it finds, why it matters, when to use it, and what it returns. The high-level return phrase 'gaps and priorities' is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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%: the single required `url` parameter already has a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but the parameter is self-explanatory, so the schema alone is sufficient.

  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 the specific verb 'Finds' and names concrete resource types (review platforms, directories, communities, 'best of' roundups), making it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like shopping or crawler watch. It also clarifies the scope as 'OUTSIDE its own website,' further sharpening the purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when a site is technically perfect yet still never cited.' It also provides a when-not by stating that the tool 'does not publish anything or contact anyone,' so the agent knows it is only for analysis, not action.

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