Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_urlA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already signal the read-only, external-facing nature, while the description adds concrete behavior beyond those annotations: hidden text is stripped by default and reported in threats, and fetches are rate limited per domain. It does not fully enumerate every output side effect, but the output schema covers the return shape.

  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 three focused sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, hidden-text handling, and tool selection with rate-limit caveats. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

  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?

  An output schema exists, so the return shape does not need to be fully spelled out in prose. The description's mentions of provenance, matches, and threats, combined with the detailed parameter schema, give an agent enough context to call 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?

  The schema descriptions cover all five parameters in detail, including query match behavior, format values, max_tokens defaults, and include_hidden semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the prose description adds little new parameter-specific meaning beyond the baseline.

  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?

  It states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one web page through the stealth browser and return clean, grounded content with provenance.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting 'Reads a URL you already have' versus search/research.

  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?

  It explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to ground answers in live web content, including sites that block plain fetchers.' It also directs users to search for finding URLs and research for combined search-and-read, so the alternative conditions are clear.

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

• searchA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which aligns with the description (read-only, returns links, nothing fetched). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: explains the dual backend (SearXNG when SEARXNG_URL set, otherwise stealth-browser rendered page) and clarifies no content is fetched until requested. Confirms the lazy-fetch behavior without 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?

  Well-structured with a clear first line stating the core purpose, followed by a 'Not for' exclusion line, a usage-recommendation paragraph, and a backend-detail sentence. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded. Approximately 90 words for a tool that does meaningful work.

  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?

  Given the output schema exists, return values are covered structurally. The description covers purpose, exclusions, alternative tools, workflow recommendation, and backend behavior. For a 2-param read-only search tool, this is fully complete—the agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (query, limit) are described in the schema itself. The description mentions the tool returns ranked hits but adds nothing about parameter syntax or semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage; description adds minimal extra parameter value but the schema fully documents them.

  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?

  Clear verb+resource ('Search the web') with explicit output format (ranked hits: title, url, snippet, engine). Strongly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it is NOT for (returning page content vs links).

  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?

  Excellent when/when-not guidance: explicitly says use read_url for one known URL, research when you want the answer rather than links. Also gives a concrete workflow pattern: find pages, then pass URLs to read_url. This is exactly the differentiation agents need among the three sibling search-ish tools.

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

• statusA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description names the specific output field `browser_reachable` and the `hint` field, giving the agent concrete knowledge of what to expect. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already signal this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining what the output means behaviorally (telling the agent what to do when unreachable), going beyond the annotation safety profile.

  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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by actionable diagnostics. No wasted words. Slight deduction could be argued for not being maximally compact, but the conditional instruction earns its place since it directly guides agent behavior. Efficient and purposeful.

  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?

  This is a simple, parameterless diagnostic tool with an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to explain return values extensively. The description covers the purpose, when to use it, and the conditional action to take based on the result. For a tool of this complexity, this is complete — nothing meaningful is missing.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The tool has 0 parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey — the schema itself documents this fully (100% coverage by definition since there are no params). The task is parameter-free, so a baseline of 4-5 applies, and the description fully compensates by explaining what the tool checks and what its output communicates.

  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's purpose: checking whether Groundhog can reach the stealth browser. It uses a specific verb ('check') with a clear resource ('reach the stealth browser') and includes a diagnostic framing, distinguishing it from sibling tools (read_url, research, search) which are substantive data-gathering operations rather than setup diagnostics.

  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?

  The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this to diagnose setup before fetching.' It also provides conditional follow-up instructions: if `browser_reachable` is false, follow `hint` to start the browser, then retry. This is directly actionable and tells the agent exactly the workflow to follow.

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

• researchA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds significant behavior: stealth browser reads, provenance receipts, injection stripping, per-source failure reporting, domain rate limiting, and performance characteristics (slowest). These go well beyond annotations and give the agent accurate 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?

  Three paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then mechanics, then usage guidance. No redundant sentences; each adds new information.

  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?

  The description covers the full workflow, failure handling, performance, and usage trade-offs. With an output schema present, the return structure is handled elsewhere. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and call this correctly.

  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 already covers each parameter (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by noting max_sources is the main cost/latency control and that the tool reads pages, which is not in the schema. This elevates it above baseline.

  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?

  States exactly what it does: 'Search the web and return ranked passages drawn from several sources.' Explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying it combines search and repeated read_url, and names the alternative behaviors.

  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?

  Explicitly says when to prefer read_url and search, and warns against using research for a single known page. Provides clear conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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