Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_news_by_locationC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the source is Google News, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or how the location parameter is resolved (e.g., API moderation or geocoding). The description is minimal but not misleading.

  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, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not provide an overview, usage notes, or output hints. Every word is not earning its place because it could be more informative without much length.

  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 that there are 5 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., article titles, links, metadata) or how the output schema is structured. The tool is moderately complex, and the description fails to provide enough context 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain what 'full_data' means in practice or the relationship between 'full_data' and 'summarize'. The schema already covers the parameters adequately, so the description adds no extra value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Find articles by location using Google News' is vague. It does not specify the verb 'get' or 'list' and fails to differentiate from siblings like get_news_by_keyword or get_top_news. The purpose is implied but not clearly defined.

  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 siblings. The description does not mention that this tool should be used for location-based queries, nor does it exclude cases where other tools (e.g., get_news_by_keyword) are more appropriate.

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

• get_news_by_keywordC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Find articles by keyword using Google News' with no mention of default behavior, pagination, rate limits, result ordering, or what happens with empty results. This is critically insufficient.

  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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns its place in terms of efficiency, but it lacks critical usage and behavioral information. A more informative but still concise description would be better.

  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?

  With 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how to use the tool effectively (e.g., combining parameters, default values). The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to provide adequate high-level context.

  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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not mention any parameter constraints or defaults.

  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 'Find articles by keyword using Google News' clearly states the specific verb (find), resource (articles), and method (by keyword). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_news_by_location and get_news_by_topic through the keyword focus.

  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 siblings (e.g., get_news_by_location, get_top_news). There is no mention of use cases, when not to use, or alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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

• get_top_newsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' news stories, but fails to mention whether it is read-only, whether authentication is needed, any rate limits, or how the 'topness' is determined. This is a significant gap for a tool that retrieves external data.

  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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as mentioning that it returns a list of articles. It earns a 4 for being efficient but not maximally helpful.

  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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how 'top' is defined, what regions or languages are covered, or any limitations. While the output schema exists and the rules state it need not describe return values, the description still lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope and behavior.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, all four parameters (period, full_data, summarize, max_results) already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable per baseline guidelines.

  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 'Get top news stories from Google News' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'top news stories from Google News'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_news_by_keyword, get_news_by_location, get_news_by_topic, and get_trending_terms by focusing specifically on top stories from Google News, which is a distinct and well-understood category.

  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. It does not mention any scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, which is insufficient for an agent to make optimal selection decisions.

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

• get_trending_termsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description lacks details on what exactly is returned (e.g., time range, number of trends, whether it includes news stories). The output schema is present but not referenced in the description.

  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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. While very brief, it avoids unnecessary words.

  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?

  Given the presence of output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is minimally adequate but could benefit from specifying that trends are 'daily trending search terms'.

  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 covers parameter descriptions comprehensively (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 returns Google Trends for a specific geo location, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling news-focused tools.

  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 or alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios for different geo granularities or when not to use this tool.

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

• get_news_by_topicA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states articles are found via Google News but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, response format, or how parameters like full_data and summarize affect results. The description is too minimal to inform safe and effective invocation.

  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?

  Two-line description with no fluff: first line states purpose, second line lists topic options. Efficient and front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

  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?

  Given 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the topic parameter well but offers no guidance on interpreting period, full_data, summarize, or max_results behavior. The output schema likely covers return format, so overall completeness is moderate.

  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%, baseline 3. Description adds significant value for the topic parameter by enumerating 50+ valid values from the underlying source (Google News categories), which the schema only vaguely describes as 'Topic to search for articles.' This extra context helps the agent select correct inputs beyond what the 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?

  Description clearly states 'Find articles by topic using Google News' with a specific verb (Find), resource (articles by topic), and source (Google News). The list of valid topic values further clarifies scope and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_news_by_keyword, get_news_by_location, etc.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios compared to siblings like get_news_by_keyword or get_top_news. The description only lists topics, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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