Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• keyword_difficultyC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a numerical score or textual assessment, or involves external API calls. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for safe and effective use.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but lacks structure for additional details like parameters or usage, which could enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity. It earns a high score for conciseness but not the top due to minimal content.

  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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'keyword difficulty' entails, how results are returned, or the role of parameters like 'country'. For a tool that likely provides SEO metrics, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making this inadequate for the task.

  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?

  The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'keyword' but doesn't explain its format (e.g., single word, phrase) or constraints. It omits the 'country' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose (e.g., regional SEO data) and default value ('us') undocumented. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Get keyword difficulty for the specified keyword' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('keyword difficulty'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'keyword difficulty' represents (e.g., SEO competition score, ranking challenge) and doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'keyword_generator', which might also involve keyword analysis. This vagueness prevents a higher score.

  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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'keyword_generator' for generating keywords or 'get_traffic' for traffic data, nor does it specify contexts where keyword difficulty is relevant (e.g., SEO planning, content strategy). Without any usage context or exclusions, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

• keyword_generatorC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get keyword ideas' but doesn't explain how it works (e.g., API calls, data sources), potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, freshness of data), or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond a basic read operation.

  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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

  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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how results are returned, error handling, or the tool's scope compared to siblings. For a tool that likely involves external data queries, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'specified keyword' but doesn't explain the 'keyword' parameter's semantics (e.g., seed term, phrase) or the purpose of 'country' and 'search_engine' parameters (e.g., localization, platform-specific results). The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's property titles imply.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Get keyword ideas for the specified keyword' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('keyword ideas'), but it's vague about what 'keyword ideas' entails (e.g., related keywords, search volume suggestions). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'keyword_difficulty', which might also involve keywords but for a different purpose.

  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 like 'keyword_difficulty' or other siblings. It lacks context such as use cases (e.g., SEO research, content planning) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

• get_trafficC
  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 the tool checks 'estimated search traffic,' implying a read-only operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, accuracy, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections enhance clarity without unnecessary verbosity. However, minor improvements could make it more efficient, such as integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

  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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output specifics. Without annotations or output schema, more comprehensive guidance would improve completeness for effective agent use.

  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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters (domain_or_url, country, mode) and a 'Returns' note, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap—e.g., it doesn't explain what 'subdomains' vs. 'exact' mode entails or provide examples for the country parameter. The baseline is 3 due to some added value but incomplete coverage.

  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: 'Check the estimated search traffic for any website.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('search traffic for any website'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_backlinks_list or keyword_difficulty, which prevents 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 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 lacks context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_backlinks_list or keyword_generator. This omission leaves the agent without usage direction.

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

• get_backlinks_listB
  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. While it mentions the return format ('List of backlinks... containing title, URL, domain rating, etc.'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or error conditions. The description provides basic output information but lacks comprehensive 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, Args section, and Returns section. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by combining the purpose and Args sections, but overall it's efficient.

  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's moderate complexity (single parameter query tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter documentation but lacks comprehensive behavioral context. The Returns section helps compensate for the missing output schema, but important operational details (rate limits, authentication, error handling) are missing. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

  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 description explicitly documents the single parameter ('domain (str): The domain to query'), adding semantic meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The parameter count is low (1), making this documentation adequate.

  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: 'Get backlinks list for the specified domain' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('backlinks list') with the target ('domain'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_traffic' or 'keyword_difficulty', which appear to be related SEO tools but have different functions.

  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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus other SEO-related tools. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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