Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ask_perplexityA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that responses include citations and choices, mentions timeout errors and retry advice, and details the response structure. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond timeouts.

  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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, but includes a detailed response structure section that might be verbose for a tool description. Some sentences (e.g., about citations and choices) could be more concise, and the structure listing feels like documentation rather than concise guidance.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple 2-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains purpose, behavioral traits (citations, timeouts), and response format. However, it lacks details on error types beyond timeouts and doesn't clarify if the tool is read-only or has side effects.

  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 the schema already documents both parameters (model and messages) thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 as 'gathering source-backed information from the internet' with specific use cases like research and fact-checking. It distinguishes itself by mentioning citations and choices in responses. However, without sibling tools, differentiation isn't tested, and the verb 'ask' in the name isn't explicitly connected to the described functionality.

  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 scenarios ('research, fact-checking, or contextual data') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. No sibling tools exist, so comparative guidance isn't needed, but it doesn't specify constraints like query types or best practices.

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