Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_googleC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns formatted search results including titles, snippets, and links,' which gives some output context, but lacks critical behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, pagination behavior (beyond the offset parameter), or whether this is a read-only operation. The mention of 'SearchAPI.site' hints at a third-party service but doesn't explain implications.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is reasonably concise with three sentences, but it's not optimally front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, but the second sentence awkwardly mixes parameter guidance ('Requires a search "query" string') with feature description ('can be able to search multiple keywords'). The third sentence covers return values. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'query' is mentioned twice), and the structure could be tighter for better clarity.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters (though well-documented in schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth), doesn't explain the relationship with sibling tools, and provides minimal guidance on usage. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output definition, more contextual information would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively.

  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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the query parameter and that it 'can be able to search multiple keywords that separated by commas' (though awkwardly phrased), but doesn't explain other parameters like limit, offset, sort, from_date, or to_date. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Google search using SearchAPI.site' with a specific verb ('Performs') and resource ('Google search'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_google_images and search_youtube by focusing on general web search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the different search types.

  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 alternatives like search_google_images or search_youtube. It mentions the tool can search multiple keywords separated by commas, but this is more about parameter usage than contextual guidance. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are included.

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

• search_google_imagesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions the API key requirement (authentication need) and describes the return format ('formatted image search results including titles, thumbnails, and source links'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or other behavioral traits like whether results are cached or real-time.

  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 concise sentences that each add value: what it does, what it requires, and what it returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the three key pieces of information.

  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?

  For a tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose, authentication requirement, and return format, but doesn't address error handling, rate limits, or provide examples. The absence of an output schema means the description's mention of return format is helpful but could be more detailed.

  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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'search query' and 'API key' but doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Google image search using SearchAPI.site' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_google' and 'search_youtube' by specifying it's for images, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description text itself.

  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 mentions the requirement for a SearchAPI.site API key, which provides some usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (search_google, search_youtube) or any alternatives. There's no explicit 'when' or 'when not' guidance.

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

• search_youtubeB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions the API key requirement (auth needs) and describes the return format (video titles, thumbnails, descriptions, links), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, error handling, or other operational constraints.

  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 four sentences that each add value: purpose, requirements, returns, and optional features. It's front-loaded with core functionality. Minor improvement could come from tighter phrasing, but there's no wasted content.

  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?

  For a search tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on what the tool does and returns. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on response structure, error cases, or performance characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively.

  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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing optional parameters (pagination, sorting, filtering by date and duration) but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what's in the schema. 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 specific action ('Performs a YouTube search') and resource ('using SearchAPI.site'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_google and search_google_images by specifying YouTube as the search target. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope combination.

  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 mentions when to use this tool (for YouTube searches) but provides no guidance on when to choose it versus the sibling tools search_google or search_google_images. There's no explicit comparison or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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