Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• keyword_difficultyC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action without details on rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or return format (e.g., numerical score, categorical rating). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in keyword analysis.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's overly brief to the point of under-specification, which slightly detracts from its effectiveness.

  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 annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably use this tool in context with its siblings.

  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 compensate but only implies the 'keyword' parameter without explaining its format or constraints. The 'country' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving both parameters poorly documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Get keyword difficulty for the specified keyword' clearly states the tool's function (retrieving difficulty metrics for keywords) but lacks specificity about what 'difficulty' entails (e.g., SEO competition, search volume complexity) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'keyword_generator' or 'get_traffic'. It's a vague purpose that could be more precise.

  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 like 'keyword_generator' for generating keywords or 'get_traffic' for traffic data. There's no mention of prerequisites, ideal contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

• keyword_generatorC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states what the tool does without revealing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or output format. This leaves critical operational details unspecified, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

  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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

  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 complexity of a keyword generation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. This inadequacy could hinder effective tool invocation by an AI agent, as key contextual information is missing.

  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?

  The description mentions 'specified keyword' but does not explain the semantics of any parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and three parameters (keyword, country, search_engine), the description fails to add meaning, such as the purpose of country codes or supported search engines. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose ('Get keyword ideas for the specified keyword'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('keyword ideas'), but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'keyword_difficulty' or explain what 'keyword ideas' entails (e.g., related terms, search volume). This makes it minimally adequate but lacking specificity.

  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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'keyword_difficulty' or 'get_traffic', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions (e.g., for SEO research vs. content planning). Without such information, users must infer usage, leading to potential misapplication.

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

• get_backlinks_listB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states it 'Get[s] backlinks list' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the domain is invalid. The return format is briefly mentioned but lacks detail on structure 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?

  Appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, args, and returns. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though the structure is basic. Could be slightly more polished but earns its place efficiently.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context: purpose, parameter semantics, and a vague return outline. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., errors, limits) and output structure, making it incomplete for optimal agent use. Scores as minimum viable.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'domain (str): The domain to query', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. With only 1 parameter, this is sufficient to reach a baseline near 4, though it could elaborate on format (e.g., 'example.com').

  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 the tool's purpose: 'Get backlinks list for the specified domain' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('backlinks list') with the target ('domain'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_traffic' or 'keyword_difficulty', but the purpose is unambiguous. Not a tautology since it elaborates beyond the name.

  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 like 'get_traffic' or 'keyword_generator'. The description implies usage for retrieving backlink data, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Minimal implied usage from the purpose statement alone.

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

• get_trafficB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks 'estimated search traffic', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in overall context for effective tool invocation.

  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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'domain_or_url' is for querying, 'country' defaults to 'None', and 'mode' has options 'subdomains' or 'exact'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail the implications of mode choices.

  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 the tool's purpose: 'Check the estimated search traffic for any website.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('search traffic'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_backlinks_list' or 'keyword_difficulty', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 like 'get_backlinks_list' or 'keyword_generator'. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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