Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gsc_striking_distanceA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the computation is 'client-side from search analytics' (which may affect freshness or performance expectations) and that results are sorted by impressions. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the 'SEO goldmine view' hook, then quickly moves to specific criteria and behavior. All three sentences contribute meaning: the first introduces the purpose, the second elaborates on its value, the third explains the computation and order. It could be slightly tighter, but it is appropriately sized 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?

  For a read-only analytics tool with 7 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: it states what the tool returns (queries in a position band, sorted by impressions), the client-side computation, and the optimization use case. Combined with rich schema descriptions and safe-read annotations, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like pagination behavior are not critical for this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds marginal semantic value by explaining the concept of 'striking distance' (position 8-25) and 'enough impressions', which maps to min_impressions, but it does not introduce any new parameter-level detail 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: returning queries in a specific 'striking-distance' position range (8-25) that are worth optimizing. It uses specific framing ('SEO goldmine view') and distinguishes this from the broader sibling gsc_search_analytics by focusing on a narrow, actionable subset. The verb is implied but unambiguous ('returns queries sorted by impressions').

  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 implies when to use this tool (when looking for quick wins near page one, where a small content tweak could improve rankings). It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics. However, the specialized angle is clear enough for an AI to select it for striking-distance optimization use cases.

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

• gsc_inspect_urlA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare read-only and safe behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as 'Returns a compact projection, not the full raw blob' and a 'one-line mobile/rich-results summary', setting expectations for response format.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality and followed by a practical use case. No wasted words or 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?

  Even without an output schema, the description mentions key returned fields and the compact nature of the response. It is complete for a simple read-only inspection tool, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid URLs, which are minor.

  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%, and the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond implying the inspection_url, so 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 a specific verb ('Inspect') applied to a single URL, with a clear outcome ('index status') and detailed data points (coverage state, crawl time, canonical). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on single-URL inspection versus site-wide analytics or sitemaps.

  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 provides a clear use case: 'debug why isn't this page indexed'. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

• gsc_list_sitemapsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by revealing what data is returned (timestamps, states, counts), which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and details, followed by a practical use case. 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 read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned fields and the purpose. It covers all necessary context without requiring output schema documentation.

  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% and the site_url parameter has a detailed description explaining exact formats (sc-domain vs URL-prefix). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 that it lists sitemaps for a property and includes specific details (submit/download times, pending state, error/warning counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sites (lists properties) and gsc_submit_sitemap (submits).

  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 says 'Use this to check whether a sitemap was processed and is error-free', providing a clear use case. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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

• gsc_search_analyticsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: GSC data lags ~2-3 days and results are compact rows, which informs end-date selection and token expectations.

  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?

  Two sentences: the first states the function and outputs, the second provides usage guidance and a caveat. No filler or repetition of schema content.

  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?

  Covers purpose, metrics, dimensions, date-range behavior, and data freshness in just two sentences. Combined with rich schema and annotations, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter docs (site_url examples, row_limit cap, dimensions enum, filter groups). The description's mention of dimensions and date range adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

  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?

  Specific verb+resource: 'Query Search Console search analytics' with explicit metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position) and dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_list_sites and gsc_submit_sitemap.

  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?

  States explicit use cases ('what are my top queries / pages' and trend questions) and provides a temporal caution about data lag. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are quite different.

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

• gsc_delete_sitemapA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the exact effect (deregisters, does not delete the file, stops tracking) and the required OAuth scope. The annotations already indicate destructive/write behavior, but the description adds meaningful nuance that changes how an agent should expect the operation to behave.

  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?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action; the second provides crucial behavioral nuance and a prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

  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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the destructive nuance, the effect on the server and Google, and the required permission. There are no obvious gaps given the tool's complexity and the existing annotations.

  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% with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Full URL of the sitemap to remove' and exact form for site_url). The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters further, so it does not add value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

  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 ('Remove') and resource ('a sitemap from a property in Search Console'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_submit_sitemap and gsc_list_sitemaps. The clarifying phrase 'it deregisters the sitemap... but Google stops tracking it' further sharpens 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description sets clear context for when to use this tool (removing a sitemap from tracking) and notes the destructive consequence, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It also mentions the required OAuth scope, which is a usage prerequisite. This falls short of explicit exclusion guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

• gsc_submit_sitemapA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the concrete side effects: 'it registers the sitemap and pings Google to crawl it,' plus the auth prerequisite and the idempotent behavior ('re-submitting the same sitemap URL just refreshes it'). This adds substantial operational context without contradicting any annotation.

  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 serving a distinct purpose: action, side-effect/auth, and idempotency. Front-loaded with the core verb+object, then essential caveats. No wasted words or redundancy.

  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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, side effects, auth requirements, and idempotency. The sibling context and annotations complete the picture, making the tool safe and correctly invocable.

  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 full descriptions for both parameters (site_url, feedpath) with examples, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, 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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Submit (or re-submit) a sitemap to Google Search Console for a property.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps (list) and gsc_delete_sitemap (delete), and the explicit 'WRITE action' framing reinforces the tool's unique role.

  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 provides clear context: it's for submitting or re-submitting sitemaps, and it explicitly warns about the OAuth scope requirement ('Requires the full webmasters OAuth scope') with a remediation path. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use gsc_list_sitemaps to view existing'), but the purpose and sibling differentiation make the when-to-use clear.

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

• gsc_list_sitesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/idempotent. The description adds context about permission levels and the exact property string format, which is useful for downstream tool use, though it doesn't disclose rate limits or pagination.

  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?

  Two sentences with no filler; the first sentence states the primary function, and the second immediately provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

  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 parameterless list tool with strong annotations, the description supplies essential purpose and the critical dependency of all sibling tools. It gives enough output hints (permission level, exact form) despite no output schema.

  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 parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters.

  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 identifies the verb (List), the resource (Search Console properties/sites), and the scope (accessible to the signed-in account). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the entry point needing property strings in the exact form returned.

  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 is provided: 'This is the entry point: every other tool needs a property string in the exact form returned here.' This tells the agent to use this tool first to discover property strings before invoking siblings.

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