Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It describes fusion (provenance-aware rank fusion), dedup, and the handle workflow. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but search is inherently idempotent and non-destructive.

  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 ~80 words, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

  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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and workflow. It could add minor edge cases (e.g., no results), but overall it's sufficient for a search tool.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall behavioral context but doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It mentions the handle workflow but that's output-oriented.

  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 verb (search), resource (web), and key differentiators (multiple engines, ranked, deduplicated). It distinguishes from siblings web_fetch and web_open which are for fetching/opening specific URLs.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says when to use (look up info, research, check claims) and mentions the handle workflow. It doesn't have explicit exclusions, but the sibling tools cover different use cases, making context clear.

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

• web_openA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it states 'never touches the network', describes pagination of stored body, and specifies error return for unfetched handles. No contradictions.

  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 concise with two sentences and an additional clarification sentence. It front-loads the main purpose and adds necessary detail without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 that output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers usage, prerequisites (cached document), behavior (no network), and error case. It feels complete for a pagination tool with these parameters.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value beyond schema: it explains handle format ('site~shorthash') and mentions defaults, but does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond what schema already 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 pages through an already-fetched document from the cache without re-fetching. It specifies the verb 'page through' and the resource 'cached document', and distinguishes itself from siblings web_fetch and web_search by noting it never touches the network.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use this to read further pages of a page you previously fetched' and provides context on how to pass the handle from prior results. It also explains what happens if not fetched (returns error), which guides when not to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but the context makes it clear.

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

• web_fetchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that content is untrusted, wrapped in a random-nonce fence, and should be treated as data. It explains pagination behavior (lossless splitting, total_pages, has_more) and mentions the datamark option for prompt-injection resistance. No contradictions.

  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 reasonably concise and front-loads the main action. It could be slightly more concise, but it earns its length by including important details about security and pagination.

  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 existence of an output schema (not shown but implied), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers pagination, security, and usage sufficiently. The tool has moderate complexity and no annotations, but the description completes the picture.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining pagination semantics (page, total_pages, has_more) and the purpose of tier and datamark, which are already described in schema but with additional context.

  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 it fetches one URL, extracts clean Markdown, and returns one token-budget page. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning use for pages from web_search or user-provided URLs, and references web_open for reading subsequent pages.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says when to use: 'Use this to read a page found via web_search, or any URL the user gives you.' It differentiates from web_open by noting that web_open is for reading the rest of the pages. While not providing extensive when-not guidance, the context is clear enough.

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