Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_interest_by_regionC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication, or what happens with default parameters.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is too short, lacking necessary details about parameters and behavior. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, return format, and usage notes, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters (geo, timeframe) beyond what is in the schema. The agent receives no additional semantic meaning 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?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'search interest', and the qualifiers 'by region/country' and 'for a keyword', making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like compare_keywords.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_keywords, get_related_queries). The description lacks context about appropriate use cases or constraints.

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

• get_related_queriesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the purpose. It does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

  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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could include more detail without losing conciseness, such as clarifying the parameter defaults.

  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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return format, parameter details, and usage context, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.

  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 explain parameters. It mentions 'keyword' but ignores 'geo' and 'timeframe', leaving their semantics unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names.

  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 'Get top and rising related queries for a keyword' clearly states the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like proxy_status, compare_keywords, and get_interest_by_region, which cover different functionalities.

  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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only information is the basic purpose.

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

• compare_keywordsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting any side effects, read-only nature, authentication needs, or output format. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

  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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly longer to include critical behavioral context without losing conciseness.

  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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the output represents (e.g., a chart or time series), any limitations (e.g., rate limits), or how the tool interacts with other systems. This leaves the agent with incomplete information.

  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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides (e.g., the 'keywords' constraint is already in the schema). 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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('search interest over time') with a clear constraint ('up to 5 keywords'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_related_queries' and 'get_interest_by_region' which handle different aspects of search data.

  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 usage for comparing keyword trends over time, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It gives no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer.

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

• proxy_statusA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists output fields but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or other behavioral traits. While 'show' implies read-only, it is not explicit.

  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 sentence with 11 words, front-loading the purpose ('Show proxy pool status') and efficiently listing the key fields. Every word earns its place.

  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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the functionality by listing the output fields. It could mention that the tool is read-only or returns a JSON object, but it is sufficient for a simple status 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?

  There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the input schema already covers the zero parameters completely.

  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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('proxy pool status'). It lists the returned fields (source, working count, age, freshness, validation progress), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxy_refresh that perform an action.

  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 when you need to check proxy pool status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like proxy_refresh. No exclusions or context for usage are given.

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

• proxy_refreshA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses blocking behavior and no-op condition, which are essential behavioral traits. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but for a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

  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, each carrying essential information: purpose first, then behavioral notes. No wasted words, highly efficient.

  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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior (blocks), and edge case (no-op). No gaps remain; it is fully complete.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the description need not add parameter info. The schema has 100% coverage, and the description's lack of parameter details is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, earning a baseline of 4.

  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 verb 'Re-validate' and the resource 'current proxy source', distinguishing between list and single-proxy modes. It differentiates from sibling 'proxy_status' by focusing on the action of refreshing rather than checking status.

  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 key usage context: blocking behavior and no-op for single-proxy mode. It implies when not to use (single-proxy), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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