Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scholar_labs_searchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the logged-in-session requirement, the AJG strict-filtering behavior, and the CAPTCHA/manual-handoff scenario. It adds context beyond what structured fields offer, though it stops short of mentioning rate limits or failure modes beyond CAPTCHA. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are present.

  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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return behavior, and fallback handling. The primary purpose is front-loaded in sentence one. No filler or redundancy. Slightly more could be trimmed but it is appropriately tight for a tool of this complexity.

  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 complex browser-automation tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow (search, AJG filtering, return of qualifying/excluded records) and the critical handoff path. It lacks an exact return-format spec, but the high-level return description partially compensates for the missing output schema.

  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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema with types, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond restating the ABS2+ default that min_stars already encodes. Baseline 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 and resource ('Search Google Scholar Labs through a logged-in CloakBrowser session') and adds the distinctive filtering behavior ('filter results strictly against the AJG 2024 rankings'). It also specifies the return scope (qualifying papers plus exclusion records). Clear, specific, and unambiguous even without siblings to differentiate.

  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 states what the tool does and notes the manual-handoff path for CAPTCHA or login, which gives context on when a human may need to step in. However, with no sibling tools listed and no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use statements, the usage guidance is implicit rather than directive. The handoff note is a behavioral fallback, not a usage-exclusion rule.

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