Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• brave_web_searchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 key behavioral traits: supports pagination, content filtering, and freshness controls; maximum 20 results per request; and offset for pagination. This covers operational limits and features beyond basic search, though it could add more on error handling or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

  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 appropriately sized with three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose and ideal use cases, second provides usage context, third details behavioral traits. It avoids redundancy and is efficient, though could be slightly more structured for clarity.

  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 fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors like pagination and limits. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what results look like) and error cases, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. It compensates well but has minor gaps.

  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 fully documents parameters (query, count, offset). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'pagination' and 'maximum 20 results per request', which relate to count and offset, but does not provide additional syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'performs a web search using the Brave Search API', specifying the verb ('performs'), resource ('web search'), and technology ('Brave Search API'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'brave_local_search' by focusing on general web content rather than local results, though the distinction could be more explicit. The purpose is specific and actionable.

  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'. It implies an alternative (the sibling 'brave_local_search') by emphasizing web content, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative directly, missing full explicit guidance.

  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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a search operation (implied read-only), specifies the data source (Brave's Local Search API), lists the type of information returned (business details, ratings, etc.), and mentions the fallback to web search. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some 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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, return details in a bulleted list, and ends with behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

  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 (search with fallback), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, usage, returned data, and behavior. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of returned results) and error cases, which would be helpful for an agent to handle responses appropriately. This is a minor gap in an otherwise comprehensive description.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'count') with their types, descriptions, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints not already covered. This meets 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's purpose: 'Searches for local businesses and places using Brave's Local Search API.' It specifies the resource (local businesses/places) and distinguishes it from its sibling 'brave_web_search' by focusing on physical locations. The description is specific and avoids tautology.

  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: 'Best for queries related to physical locations, businesses, restaurants, services, etc.' and 'Use this when the query implies 'near me' or mentions specific locations.' It also mentions an alternative behavior ('Automatically falls back to web search if no local results are found'), though not explicitly naming the sibling tool. This gives clear context for selection.

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