Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_searchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions 'search' and 'normalized results'. It does not disclose provider strategy, fallback/merge behavior, result limits, or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

  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 a single, direct sentence that communicates the core action and result format. There is no wasted text or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  Despite a detailed input schema, the tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain result semantics, provider behavior, or usage constraints. For a 12-parameter search tool with several configurable options, this is too sparse to be fully actionable.

  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 input schema provides descriptions for all 12 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

  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 identifies the action (search) and resource (general web), and notes that results are normalized. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but 'general web' provides a useful scope hint compared to news_search or search_and_fetch.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like news_search or fetch_url. The phrase 'general web' weakly implies broad search, but there are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

• search_and_fetchB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool searches, ranks, and fetches pages, adding some context over the bare name. However, it omits ranking logic, output format, error behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant transparency gaps for a non-trivial tool.

  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: two short clauses deliver the core purpose without filler or repetition. Every phrase adds value, and the structure makes the combined search-and-fetch intent immediately clear.

  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?

  For a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It gives no indication of expected return values, how strategy affects behavior, how the tool interacts with sibling tools, or what 'best' means in ranking. It leaves an agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the most basic query.

  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 low (~31%, only 4 of 13 parameters have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on any parameters; the high-level phrasing ('search, rank, and fetch') only loosely maps to search_results and fetch_results but offers no semantic detail for region, language, strategy, providers, time_range, or domain filters. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

  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 combined action ('Search the web and fetch the best results') and introduces a distinct research-oriented workflow ('One call for research: search, rank, and fetch the best few pages'). It distinguishes from siblings only through the combined nature, without explicitly naming them or contrasting with web_search/fetch_url.

  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 phrase 'One call for research' implies a use case where both search and fetch are needed, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or alternative tool references. Sibling tools like web_search and fetch_url are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when to use this composite tool versus separate calls.

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

• news_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses that results are date-sensitive and include publisher/publication time, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as sorting, pagination, or rate limits, leaving gaps in transparency.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with a clear action verb ('Search') and no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output, achieving excellent conciseness.

  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?

  Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description only provides minimal output detail (publisher, publication time). It lacks context on result structure, pagination, or how parameters interact, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool of this complexity.

  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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'recent' loosely aligns with the time_range parameter but does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

  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 function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('recent news articles'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like web_search and fetch_url. The second sentence adds output details (publisher, publication time), reinforcing its niche as a news-specific search tool.

  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 for finding recent news articles but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like web_search or fetch_url. There are no exclusions or preference cues beyond the 'news' focus, leaving the decision to the agent's interpretation.

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

• fetch_urlA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only public URLs are supported and that output can be Markdown or text, but it doesn't cover redirects, error handling, content extraction specifics, or rate limits. It provides basic context but lacks richer behavioral detail.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core functionality and output options without redundancy or irrelevant details.

  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 the tool's simplicity and comprehensive schema descriptions, the description is complete enough. It adds the key distinction of 'public' URLs and the output format, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters. It adds some semantic meaning by noting 'clean Markdown' which aligns with the output parameter, but the schema already describes all parameters sufficiently.

  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 fetches a URL and returns extracted content as Markdown or plain text, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on direct URL retrieval.

  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 implies use for directly retrieving a known public URL rather than searching, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like web_search. This is implied by the sibling tool names and the word 'public'.

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