Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses performance and output format, but lacks details on limitations (e.g., query length, result freshness) or any caveats. With no annotations, more is expected.

  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 sentences, efficiently communicates key points without verbosity. Front-loaded with core purpose.

  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?

  No output schema, but describes return structure (titles, URLs, descriptions). Missing details like pagination or error handling, but 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 covers 100% of parameters; description adds no extra semantics beyond repeating 'q' as query and noting 'context' is optional. Baseline score 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?

  Clearly states it searches the web using Brave Search API, returning structured results. Distinguishes from siblings like scrape/crawl by highlighting it doesn't scrape pages.

  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?

  Implies usage for quick searches with 'fast, reliable, no rate limits', but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use.

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

• scrapeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description discloses success rate, handling of JavaScript/Cloudflare sites, stealth mode, and CAPTCHA solving. This goes beyond minimal expectations, though it could mention handling of robots.txt or daily limits more explicitly.

  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?

  Four sentences, each earning its place: main action, success metrics, feature list, practical tip and limits. Front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

  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?

  Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's capabilities, success rate, and rate limits. It could include error handling details, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent.

  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 100% with descriptions already provided. The description adds value by explaining how to use 'context' for relevance, and confirms the URL format requirement. This justifies a score above baseline 3.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Convert any URL to clean, LLM-ready Markdown.' Verb and resource are specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like batch_scrape or crawl, the purpose is distinct and well-communicated.

  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?

  Provides tips (use 'context' for better results) and mentions free tier limits. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like batch_scrape or search.

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

• batch_scrapeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the max of 10 URLs and markdown output, but lacks details on error handling, partial failures, or speed characteristics. Adequate but not thorough.

  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 concise sentences with no extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core action and resource, efficiently conveying key points.

  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?

  For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, limits, and output format. However, it omits error handling and partial result behavior, which are relevant for batch operations.

  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 'up to 10' constraint and efficiency note, but does not clarify the 'context' parameter's effect or provide example values.

  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 scrapes multiple URLs at once (up to 10) and returns markdown. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'scrape' by noting efficiency improvements over looping.

  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?

  It explicitly recommends using this tool when you have multiple URLs, contrasting with calling scrape() in a loop. However, it does not specify when to use alternatives like crawl or search, or provide exclusions for single URLs.

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

• crawlA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the tool's behavior: it performs a Google search, scrapes the top results, and returns structured Markdown. It does not cover potential rate limits or ethical considerations, but for a simple tool the coverage is good.

  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 at two sentences, with the purpose stated first. Every word adds value; no redundancy or 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 the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers the main functionality and return structure. It lacks an explicit link between the 'count' parameter and 'top results,' and could mention default count, but overall it is fairly complete.

  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 already describes all three parameters (q, count, context) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema. 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 specific action: 'Search Google for a query and scrape the top results to Markdown.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' (which likely returns only search results) and 'scrape' (which likely scrapes a given URL), by combining search and content extraction.

  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 obtaining full-page content from search results, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings 'search' or 'scrape', nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• extractA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is JSON and input requires a schema, but does not mention error handling, authentication, rate limits, or behavior on invalid URLs. This is a basic but incomplete disclosure.

  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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently conveys usage and format. Minor room for improvement: integrating the example more concisely could reduce redundancy with the schema.

  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 three parameters (two required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and schema format. However, it lacks mention of the optional 'context' parameter and does not specify output structure beyond 'as JSON'. Constraints like size limits or supported URL types are absent, making it barely adequate for a complete 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?

  The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the schema format with an example and clarifying the data types. However, it does not mention the optional 'context' parameter, which is covered in the schema but not in the description.

  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 extracts structured data from any URL as JSON, using a user-provided schema. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scrape' (general HTML extraction) and 'search' (querying). The verb 'extract' and resource 'structured data' are specific and unambiguous.

  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 explains when to use the tool by providing examples of suitable use cases (prices, availability, product details). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or compare with sibling tools like 'crawl' or 'batch_scrape', leaving some room for interpretation.

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