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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'real-time information' but does not disclose rate limits, response format details, error handling, or any side effects. The tool is likely read-only but this is not confirmed.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. Parameters are listed clearly with brief explanations. No wasted words. However, it mixes parameter descriptions with return type in a non-standard format (Args/Returns), which is acceptable but slightly less structured than ideal.

  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 (1 required) and an output schema (string), the description covers all params minimally. It lacks usage examples, failure behaviors, or differentiation from sibling. For a simple search tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive. The lack of annotations increases the need for more 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly explains each parameter: query, model (with enum options), recency_filter (example 'week'), city, country. For model, it list options already in schema but adds default value. Other parameters have minimal explanation; recency_filter and city/country lack examples beyond 'week' and 'day'. Adds some value but could be more detailed.

  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 purpose: 'Search the web using Perplexity Sonar API for real-time information.' It uses specific verbs and resources. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'web_search_academic', leaving ambiguity about which to use for general vs. academic queries.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose web_search over web_search_academic or any prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and general purpose.

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

• web_search_academicB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states it uses an external API. It omits critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, cost implications, or what happens if the API fails. The mention of models is present but lacks context on how they differ behaviorally.

  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 follows a clean docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It is well-organized and reasonably concise, though the Args list partially duplicates schema information. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly tighter.

  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 an output schema (avoiding need to detail returns), the description covers core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks guidance on usage context versus the sibling tool and omits behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for a tool that invokes an external API.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully explains each parameter. It lists query, model with options, recency_filter with examples, and city/country with their purpose. However, 'recency_filter' only gives examples without specifying exact accepted values, and the role of city/country in search could be clearer.

  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 searches academic sources using the Perplexity Sonar API for scholarly information. The verb 'search' and specific resource 'academic sources' provide a concrete purpose, and the explicit mention of the API distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'web_search'.

  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 'web_search'. It does not mention alternative tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over a general web search.

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