Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_mediaA
  4.2/5.0
  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 adds some context about default values and limits (default: images, max_results default: 10, max: 50) and describes the return format ('Media URLs with thumbnails and sources'), but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or error handling.

  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 appropriately sized with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, returns). Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct information. The front-loaded purpose statement is followed by logically organized supporting details without redundancy.

  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?

  For a search tool with 4 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks some behavioral context that would be helpful for an AI agent, such as performance characteristics or error conditions.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by repeating parameter names and basic constraints, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like query formatting examples, engine options, or result quality considerations. The baseline of 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.

  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 with specific verbs ('Search for images or videos') and resources ('images or videos'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'research_topic' and 'search' by focusing specifically on media content. The opening sentence directly communicates the core function without ambiguity.

  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 usage guidelines with a dedicated 'Use this when:' section listing three concrete scenarios (finding images/photos, looking for video content, and example queries). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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

• 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 full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it 'runs a SINGLE search', returns 'up to max_results (default 10)', and specifies the return format ('Search results with titles, URLs, and snippets'). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral note, parameters, returns), front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a strong job covering purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. It lacks details on error cases, pagination, or authentication, but for a search tool with 100% schema coverage and clear behavioral notes, it's nearly complete. A 5 would require output schema or more edge-case coverage.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies 'category' options with examples ('general' for web, 'news' for news) and notes 'engines' as 'comma-separated', but doesn't provide additional semantic context like query formatting tips or engine-specific behaviors.

  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 performs a 'quick search for web or news content' with specific verbs ('search', 'lookup') and resources ('web', 'news content'). It distinguishes from sibling 'research_topic' by emphasizing 'simple' vs 'comprehensive' and from 'search_media' by focusing on web/news rather than media.

  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 'Use this when' guidelines with three specific scenarios and explicitly states when NOT to use it ('not comprehensive research'), naming the alternative 'research_topic'. This gives clear context for tool selection among siblings.

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

• research_topicA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by detailing behavioral traits: it runs 2-6 searches automatically using multiple engines and sources, deduplicates results, returns 15-50 unique sources based on depth, and includes critical post-processing steps like cross-referencing and synthesis. This provides rich context beyond basic functionality.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameters, critical instructions, returns) and front-loaded key information. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though some sentences in the 'CRITICAL' section could be more concise without losing clarity.

  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 complexity (multi-search research with validation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, detailed behavior, parameter semantics, and explicit post-processing requirements, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke and use the tool effectively.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'depth' parameter's semantics: mapping 'quick,' 'standard,' and 'deep' to specific search counts and source ranges, with 'standard' recommended. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum and description.

  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 performs 'deep research with multiple searches and source validation,' specifying the verb ('research') and resource ('sources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'search_media' by emphasizing comprehensive, multi-source validation rather than simple queries or media-specific searches.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for 'comprehensive research or briefing,' 'validate information across multiple sources,' 'in-depth analysis,' or when users ask to 'research,' 'investigate,' or 'give me a briefing.' It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on multi-engine, validated research rather than single searches.

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