Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• extract_linksA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It only lists parameter defaults and a brief note on filter_domain, but omits critical behavioral details: error handling, redirects, how links are extracted (href vs. full URL), and what happens on failure.

  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 brief docstring with a one-line summary followed by an Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundant phrases. Front-loading the verb 'Extract' immediately conveys action.

  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?

  Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description explains parameter mechanics well. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would make it complete for an agent (e.g., what the output looks like, rate limits, or domain filtering logic). The output schema may cover return format, but in-tool guidance is minimal.

  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?

  The description adds significant value beyond the schema: filter_domain notes 'only return links to the same domain', timeout specifies 'in seconds', max_links mentions default (50) and max (200). Schema coverage is 0%, so these clarifications are essential.

  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 'Extract all links from a web page,' which is a specific verb + resource. It immediately distinguishes from siblings like extract_by_selector (CSS extraction) and search_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 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. For example, it doesn't mention that extract_by_selector might be preferred for specific CSS selections, or that fetch_clean_text is for text extraction.

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

• extract_by_selectorA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains parameters like timeout and max_results, but does not disclose potential failure modes, rate limiting, or nature of fetch operation. Return format is implied but not detailed, though output schema exists.

  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?

  Description is concise (5 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and lists arguments succinctly. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

  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 5 parameters and output schema exists, description covers all inputs adequately. Could mention return behavior on failure, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

  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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to all 5 parameters: e.g., attribute options ('text', 'html', or attribute name), defaults for timeout and max_results. Provides enough context for correct usage.

  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 it extracts content from a web page using CSS selectors. Verb and resource are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like extract_links and fetch_clean_text by focusing on CSS selector-based extraction.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• fetch_clean_textA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses parameters and defaults (max_chars, timeout) but does not mention behavior like robots.txt handling, JavaScript execution, error handling, or the extraction algorithm. Some transparency but gaps remain.

  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 extremely concise: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of args. No wasted words, front-loaded purpose, and easy to scan.

  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 simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and inputs. It does not describe the output format or edge cases, but the output schema can fill that gap. Minor completeness gap.

  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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter: url, max_chars with default and max, timeout with default. This compensates for the lack of 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 the tool fetches a web page and extracts clean readable text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_by_selector (CSS selectors) and extract_links (link extraction) by specifying a general clean text extraction.

  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 use for extracting readable text from a URL but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer extract_by_selector or other siblings.

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

• search_webA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations; description mentions using DuckDuckGo HTML search and provides parameter defaults, but lacks details on rate limits, output format, or potential restrictions.

  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?

  Extremely concise, single-sentence purpose followed by parameter list; no redundancy.

  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?

  Covers the basics: purpose, parameters, defaults. Output schema exists to explain return values, so this is sufficient for a simple tool, though could mention the use of HTML search specificities.

  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?

  With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaningful parameter descriptions (defaults, max for max_results, timeout) beyond the schema's titles.

  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 'Search the web using DuckDuckGo HTML search,' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like extract_by_selector.

  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?

  Implicitly suggests use for web searches, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives compared to sibling tools.

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