Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• 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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as result format, limits, or side effects. It adds no value beyond the basic purpose.

  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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it is underspecified to the point of being unhelpful. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  With no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters undocumented, the description is severely incomplete. It does not convey return values, usage context, or parameter effects.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to explain the meaning or usage of any of the three parameters (keyword, country, search_engine). It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 'get' and the resource 'keyword ideas', and the name 'keyword_generator' aligns. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_backlinks_list, get_traffic, keyword_difficulty) which focus on other aspects.

  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 vs alternatives, nor does it mention context or exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent with no directional support.

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

• keyword_difficultyC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits beyond the input schema. It only states the basic action (get difficulty) but does not mention what the output looks like, whether it is a number or label, or any constraints like rate limits or data freshness. This is insufficient for a tool without output schema.

  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 sentence of 8 words, extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

  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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description should compensate by explaining the difficulty metric, return format, or common use cases. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about what the response contains and how to interpret it.

  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 input schema has two parameters (keyword, country) with zero description coverage. The description only mentions 'the specified keyword', adding minimal meaning for that parameter. It does not explain the 'country' parameter's purpose or default behavior, nor does it provide any additional context beyond the schema.

  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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'keyword difficulty', clearly indicating what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_backlinks_list and get_traffic by focusing on difficulty. However, it does not specify what the difficulty metric represents (e.g., score range), which slightly reduces clarity.

  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 the sibling tools (get_backlinks_list, get_traffic, keyword_generator). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

• get_backlinks_listB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses basic return structure but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, data freshness, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, minimal transparency.

  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?

  Very short description, front-loaded with the action. The docstring is somewhat redundant but not excessive. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

  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?

  Single parameter with straightforward functionality. Description covers input and basic output fields. However, lacks information on pagination, limits, data source, or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent.

  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 has 0% description coverage for the 'domain' parameter. Description adds a brief explanation 'The domain to query', which provides minimal but necessary context beyond the schema's type-only definition.

  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?

  Description clearly states 'Get backlinks list for the specified domain', using a strong verb and specific resource. Sibling tools (get_traffic, keyword_difficulty, keyword_generator) cover different data, so this is well differentiated.

  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. Does not mention any preconditions, limitations, or when to avoid using it. Only implied by the name.

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

• get_trafficA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or data freshness. 'Check the estimated search traffic' is clear but lacks depth on behavior beyond the parameter list.

  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?

  Very concise, front-loaded purpose, then parameter list. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Adequate for a simple tool with 3 params and no output schema, but fails to specify return data shape or error cases. Could be more complete with examples or output details.

  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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining each parameter: domain_or_url, country (with default), and mode (with enum values). Adds useful context beyond the 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?

  Clearly states the tool checks estimated search traffic for any website, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_backlinks_list and keyword_difficulty.

  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. Does not mention contexts, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools are better suited.

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