Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_searchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds value by explaining metasearch aggregation, result content (snippets, infoboxes), and filter capabilities. 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?

  Four sentences with key info front-loaded. Reasonably concise, though could be slightly tighter. No 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?

  For a search tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, result content, and major filters. Lacks pagination details but sufficient for selection.

  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?

  All 12 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description summarizes filter types but adds no new parameter semantics 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?

  Clearly states it's a web search via SearXNG metasearch, aggregating multiple engines. Lists specific result types (titles, URLs, snippets, direct answers, infoboxes). Distinguishes from siblings by detailing available filters, though could explicitly contrast with web_search_advanced.

  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?

  States 'Use for questions requiring up-to-date information from the internet.' No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions (e.g., web_fetch for single page retrieval). Usage is implied but not fully guided.

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

• web_search_advancedA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing additional behavioral traits: includes direct answers, infoboxes, suggestions, and spelling corrections. 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function and key features. The second provides usage guidance and additional features. Every word adds value, and the important information is front-loaded.

  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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, key parameters, and what the response includes (direct answers, suggestions). It could be more complete about the exact output structure, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

  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% with each parameter documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing an example usage that illustrates how to combine parameters (e.g., 'from the last month only from arxiv.org and github.com'). This helps agents understand parameter interaction.

  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 it is an advanced web search with full filter control, listing specific capabilities like domain, date, and engine filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing precision filtering, but does not explicitly contrast with web_search or web_fetch.

  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 provides a usage example and indicates when to use precise filtering ('Use when you need precise filtering'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives like a simpler web_search.

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

• web_fetchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by explaining output format (clean text), token efficiency of highlights mode, and ideal use cases. 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then modes and usage. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Highly 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?

  Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (clean text, excerpts, token savings). It lacks explicit error handling or constraints, but the tool is straightforward and annotations cover safety. Adequate for typical use.

  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%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the distinction between modes and recommending when to use each, as well as the use of query with highlights. This goes beyond the schema's terse 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 extracts page content as clean text and distinguishes two modes. It differentiates from siblings (web_search, web_search_advanced) by focusing on content extraction rather than search.

  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: prefer 'highlights' with a query for factual searches and 'text' for deep analysis. Implicitly advises against using this for searching, which is the role of sibling tools.

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