Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• local_poisC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 source ('Brave Local Search API') but fails to describe key traits like whether it's read-only or mutative, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if invalid IDs are provided. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Fetch extra information for locations') and specifies the API. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it appropriately concise, though it could be more structured with additional details if needed for 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 the tool's complexity (fetching location data via an external API), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably use the tool without further context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'ids' of type array of strings. The description does not explain what these IDs represent (e.g., location identifiers, coordinates), their format, or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'Fetch[es] extra information for locations' using a specific API, which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of 'extra information' (e.g., reviews, hours, contact details) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'local_descriptions' or 'rich_fetch', leaving ambiguity about its unique role.

  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?

  No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'local_descriptions' or 'web_search'. The description implies usage for location-related data but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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

• rich_fetchC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions fetching 'rich results' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the results include, whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

  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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'rich results' are, the return format, or any behavioral context needed for a tool with no structured data support, making it inadequate for proper agent usage.

  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%, with the parameter callback_key fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by referencing it comes from web_search.rich.hint.callback_key, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool fetches rich results using a callback_key from web_search, which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'rich results' entail and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its sibling web_search tool, making it somewhat vague.

  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 implies usage by referencing a callback_key from web_search, suggesting it should be used after web_search. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_search or other siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• local_descriptionsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching via an external API, which implies network usage and potential rate limits, but doesn't specify authentication needs, error handling, or what 'AI-generated' entails. It lacks details on response format, pagination, or data freshness.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the API source, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

  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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral traits like rate limits or errors, or return values. For a tool with external API dependencies and one required parameter, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  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 for undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain the 'ids' parameter—what these IDs represent, their format, or how to obtain them. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent guessing about input requirements.

  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 action ('Fetch AI-generated descriptions') and resource ('for locations'), specifying it uses the Brave Local Search API. It distinguishes from 'local_pois' (likely points of interest) and 'web_search' (general search) by focusing on location descriptions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'rich_fetch' (which might be similar).

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'local_pois' or 'rich_fetch'. The description implies it's for location descriptions, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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

• web_searchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only mentions the API used ('Brave Web Search API'). It lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the search results include, which are critical for a web search tool.

  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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 the complexity of a web search tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or important constraints like the 'count' range (1-20), leaving significant gaps for the agent.

  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 57% (4 out of 7 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining enum values (e.g., 'freshness' options) or default behaviors, but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

  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 verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), specifying it uses the 'Brave Web Search API'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'local_descriptions' or 'local_pois', which might also search but in different contexts, so it's not a perfect 5.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'local_descriptions' or 'rich_fetch'. The description only states what it does without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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