Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• brave_web_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively adds context beyond the input schema by stating 'Maximum 20 results per request, with offset for pagination', which clarifies limits and pagination behavior. It also mentions 'Supports pagination, content filtering, and freshness controls', providing useful operational details. However, it lacks information on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds specific value: ideal use cases, features like pagination and filtering, and operational limits. There is no wasted text, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information in a compact form.

  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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and operational limits. However, without an output schema, it does not explain return values or result format, and it lacks details on error handling or authentication, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

  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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (query, count, offset) with details like max chars, ranges, and defaults. The description adds marginal value by implying usage of these parameters for 'pagination' and 'freshness controls', but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 'performs a web search using the Brave Search API', specifying both the action ('performs a web search') and resource ('Brave Search API'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'brave_local_search' by emphasizing 'general queries, news, articles, and online content' for broad information gathering, which implies a contrast with local search functionality.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'ideal for general queries, news, articles, and online content' and 'for broad information gathering, recent events, or when you need diverse web sources'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied sibling tool, missing explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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

• brave_local_searchA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the fallback mechanism to web search, specifies the types of information returned (business names, addresses, ratings, etc.), and implies it's a read-only search operation. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are minor gaps.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and return details in a bulleted list for clarity. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return information. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the exact structure of returned data (e.g., JSON format), but the bulleted list provides sufficient context for most use cases.

  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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'query' parameter should be location-focused (e.g., 'near me'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

  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 ('Searches for local businesses and places') and resource ('using Brave's Local Search API'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'brave_web_search' by focusing on physical locations and businesses. It explicitly mentions what it's best for (queries related to physical locations, businesses, restaurants, services).

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the query implies 'near me' or mentions specific locations') and distinguishes it from alternatives by mentioning it 'Automatically falls back to web search if no local results are found,' implying the sibling tool might be for non-local queries. It also specifies what it's best for versus general cases.

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