Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• askA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return type (Schema.org-typed objects) and effects of mode and itemType, going beyond annotations without contradiction.

  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?

  Three sentences, efficiently front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information; each sentence adds unique value.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool complexity (3 parameters, one required, has output schema), description covers inputs, outputs, security, and optional behaviors. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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% so baseline 3. Description adds context: frames 'q' as natural-language question over specific content, explains 'mode' adds summary, and 'itemType' filters corpus type – meaningful value beyond 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?

  Description clearly states it is a natural-language search over Agent Ready's content, listing specific domains. Verb 'search' and resource are explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_site and validate_structured_data.

  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?

  Mentions it is public with no API key required, and describes optional parameters. Implicitly suggests use for questions about Agent Ready's content, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state 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.

• validate_structured_dataA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true. The description adds valuable context: it is public, requires no API key, and lists the specific checks performed (freshness, honesty, coherence, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations.

  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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does and the checks, the second clarifies the parameters and unique value.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, input modes, behavioral traits, and unique differentiation, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

  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%, and the description adds meaning to each parameter: 'url' is for fetching and validating, 'jsonld' is for validating a string with no network. This adds value beyond the 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 specifies a verb (validates), a resource (JSON-LD structured data), and a clear scope (Agent Ready's specific checks: schema lint + agent-coherence). It distinguishes itself from first-party validators, making the purpose unique and unmistakable.

  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 explicitly states the two usage modes (url or jsonld) and the constraint 'provide exactly one'. It also notes that no API key is required and it's public. While it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, the siblings appear unrelated, so no further guidance is necessary.

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

• get_scanA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: fetches both completed and in-progress scans, requires Pro API key, and is account-scoped. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.)

  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: first sentence states primary purpose, second adds key usage context. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the simple tool (single parameter, output schema exists, annotations rich), the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and differentiation from siblings. Complete for effective tool selection.

  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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the id parameter in detail (returned by scan_site, 10-character nanoid). The description adds no new parameter information, so baseline score 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 verb 'fetches' and the resource 'scan by its id'. It distinguishes from sibling scan_site by noting that anonymous scan_site returns results inline, so this tool is for retrieving previous scans.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use (Pro API key, account-scoped scan history) and when not to use (anonymous calls should use scan_site). Provides clear context for tool selection.

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

• scan_siteA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: anonymous free tier limits (3 scans/30 days, 25-page depth), synchronous execution with timeout, and fallback to async polling. No contradiction with annotations; description enriches them.

  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: first sentence states purpose and output structure; second sentence covers tiers, limits, and polling fallback. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy. Front-loaded with key action and results.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the tool's medium complexity, the description covers purpose, input (URL), output (structured scores), tier behavior, and polling mechanism. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. All necessary information for correct selection and invocation is present.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds plan-specific caps for pageLimit (Free 25, Pro 250, Team 2000), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent choose appropriate values, justifying a 4.

  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 'runs the agent-ready.dev scanner' and the resource 'a URL', and specifies the structured results (Vercel score, llmstxt.org score, per-check findings). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_scan' by mentioning polling, so an agent knows this initiates the scan while get_scan retrieves results.

  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 (to scan a site) and provides tier-specific behavior (free with limits, Pro deeper). It explicitly instructs to poll with 'get_scan' if the deadline elapses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for already-scanned sites), but that is implied.

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