Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_by_categoryA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that engine/category list is currently unavailable due to SearXNG unreachability, and explains validation behavior. Also describes multi-page fanout and dedup behavior. Sufficient for a search tool.

  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?

  Description is concise at about 10 sentences, front-loading the purpose. The note about server unreachability is important but adds length. Overall no wasted words, 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 8 parameters and no output schema, description covers category behavior, multi-page fanout, error conditions (SearXNG unreachable), and references to sibling tool. Lacks explicit return format but acceptable since no output schema.

  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 baseline 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter; the only extra context is the note about categories availability, which is minor.

  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?

  Description clearly specifies verb 'Search' within 'one or more categories', running engines tagged with each. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on category-based broad coverage without enumerating engines, and explicitly compares to 'search' tool.

  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?

  Describes when to use: for broad coverage of content type without enumerating engines. Also notes caveats about engine list unavailability and how to fix. Implicitly advises against using when engine list is needed, but lacks explicit when-not or comparison to 'search_on_engines'.

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

• search_on_enginesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the current state (SearXNG unreachable) and that engine names are forwarded and validated later. However, it does not describe behavior for invalid engines, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps in transparency.

  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 relatively concise with two paragraphs. The first sentence is direct. The note about the engine list is necessary context. Slightly verbose with the restart instruction, but overall efficient.

  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?

  Despite 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, current instance state, and comparison with sibling tools. Missing explanation of result format, but acceptable for a search tool with sibling context.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds a usage example but no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. No reduction or increase warranted.

  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's purpose: searching using specified engines only, with an example. It explicitly differentiates from the broad `search` tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 guidance: 'Use when you have a specific source preference instead of the broad `search` tool.' Also mentions the alternative tool and notes the current unavailability of the engine list, with restart instructions. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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

• searchA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses behavioral traits beyond schema: returns merged/deduplicated results, engine-dependent yield, multi-page fanout, rate-limit risks, time_range caveats, default formats. Lacks explicit read-only statement but implied for search.

  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?

  Well-structured with a concise opening, a 'Knobs' section for parameters, and a clear alternatives section. Front-loaded with purpose. No redundant sentences.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, description covers return formats and key fields. Provides complete context for correct tool selection and invocation, including behavioral quirks and alternative tools.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  All 7 parameters are described in detail with usage nuance, defaults, warnings, and clarifications that go far beyond the schema descriptions. Examples include pages cap, format trade-offs, time_range incompatibility, and language filter behavior.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Broad web search across the SearXNG instance's full enabled engine pool' with a specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating use when no specific source preference.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for general-purpose queries when you don't have a specific source preference.' Includes a dedicated section 'When to reach for a different tool' naming alternatives and their purposes.

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

• web_url_readA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, description fully covers behavior: limitations (JS-rendered, bot-protected, binary), response fields (total_length, truncated), and extraction mode priority. No contradictions.

  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?

  Well-structured with bullet points and sections. Slightly long but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and use cases.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, description adequately explains response fields (total_length, truncated). Covers all 6 parameters, usage patterns, and limitations. Complete for a complex tool.

  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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining priority order, use of section matching, and workflow integration, going beyond schema descriptions.

  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 it fetches a URL and converts HTML to Markdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search by specifying it provides actual page text, not snippets. Explicitly lists what it does and does not handle.

  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?

  Provides explicit context for use: 'Use after search' and suggests fallback to Chromium-based reader for problematic pages. Details priority order for extraction modes and a recommended workflow for long pages.

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