Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_web_search_summariesA
  4.5/5.0
  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 does well by explaining the tool returns 'lightweight' results with 'only result summaries' for 'quick overview', specifying the output format as 'Formatted text containing search result summaries (title, URL, description)', and providing usage examples. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the core behavior thoroughly.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is comprehensive but lengthy with multiple sections (Args, Returns, Parameter Usage Guidelines, Usage Examples, When to Choose This Tool, Decision Matrix, Workflow Patterns). While well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, it could be more concise by integrating some sections. Every sentence adds value, but the overall length is substantial.

  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 7-parameter complexity, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral context, sibling tool comparisons, and workflow patterns. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on usage context.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 7 parameters with brief explanations in the Args section, providing a 'Parameter Usage Guidelines' section for the two most important parameters, and showing 6 detailed usage examples that demonstrate how parameters work together. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get lightweight web search results with only result summaries' and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for 'quick overview of available sources without full content'. It explicitly contrasts with 'full_web_search' which provides actual content, making the distinction clear.

  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 provides extensive guidance including a 'When to Choose This Tool' section, a detailed decision matrix comparing it to sibling tools, workflow patterns, and explicit criteria like 'Choose this for initial research phase' and 'Speed is more important than content depth'. It clearly states when to use this tool versus 'full_web_search' and 'get_single_web_page_content'.

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

• full_web_searchA
  4.6/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool performs web searches with content extraction, mentions performance implications ('Higher limits take longer due to content extraction'), and explains what happens when include_content is false. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions that would be helpful for a comprehensive web search tool.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  While well-structured with clear sections, the description is quite lengthy with redundant information. The initial description repeats similar phrases ('comprehensive research' appears multiple times), and the parameter documentation section is extensive. Some information could be more efficiently presented, though the structure helps with navigation.

  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 complexity of a 9-parameter web search tool with no annotations, the description provides comprehensive coverage. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it versus alternatives, detailed parameter semantics, and includes multiple usage examples. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description adequately covers the remaining context needed for effective tool use.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing extensive parameter documentation. Each parameter gets detailed explanations including purpose, constraints, default values, and usage examples. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema, explaining what each parameter does and how to use it effectively.

  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: 'Get comprehensive web search results with full page content extraction.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('web search results'), and distinguishing feature ('full page content extraction'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing comprehensive content extraction versus summaries or single-page extraction.

  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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a dedicated 'When to Use This' section listing specific scenarios and a 'Related Functionality' section that explicitly names sibling tools (search summaries, single page extraction) and when to use them instead. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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

• get_single_web_page_contentA
  4.7/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (extracts content), what it returns (formatted text with word count), and includes important behavioral context like error handling (inaccessible URLs, blocked sites, timeouts) and practical constraints (dynamic content may require multiple attempts). The only minor gap is lack of explicit rate limit or authentication information.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, parameter guidelines, examples, when to choose, error handling, alternatives). While comprehensive, some sections like the multiple similar examples could be slightly condensed. However, every section adds value and the core purpose is front-loaded effectively.

  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 tool's complexity (web content extraction with potential errors), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, behavioral traits, error scenarios, and sibling tool differentiation. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return format, allowing it to focus on operational context.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation that fully compensates. It explains both parameters in detail: url requirements (valid HTTP/HTTPS, full URL with protocol, examples) and max_content_length behavior (optional, default unlimited, common values, practical use cases). The usage examples further clarify parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema provides.

  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 with specific verb ('extract and return') and resource ('full content from a single web page URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on content extraction from a specific URL rather than search functionality, with explicit differentiation in the 'Alternative Tools' section.

  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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you have a specific URL and need the full text content for analysis or reference') and when not to use it (via the 'Alternative Tools' section that names specific sibling tools for different use cases). The 'When to Choose This Tool' section further elaborates with concrete scenarios.

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