Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fetch_urlA
  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. It explicitly discloses behavioral traits: 'strip boilerplate', returns markdown, and the proxy routing for international vs. CN hosts. This goes beyond minimal operational details, though it doesn't address error handling or auth requirements.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a relevant network routing detail. Every sentence adds necessary context with no redundant or filler content.

  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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return value ('markdown') and key behavior (boilerplate stripping, proxy routing). It lacks mention of error handling or non-HTML content, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

  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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds little beyond the schema; 'Fetch a URL' paraphrases the url parameter, and max_chars is already described as 'Max chars of markdown to return.' No additional parameter semantics are provided.

  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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a URL'), and the output format ('return the page content as markdown'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools 'web_search' and 'deep_research', which are for searching/researching rather than fetching a known URL.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when the agent has a specific URL to retrieve, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like web_search or deep_research. It lacks an explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement.

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

• deep_researchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: engine auto-selection (CN vs international), deduplication and ranking, fetching top pages, and producing a cited markdown report. This gives good insight into the internal pipeline, though lacks details on failure modes or operational limits.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No wasted 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?

  For a complex tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the workflow and final output (cited markdown report). It omits some operational details but is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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 only 40%, and the description helps clarify 'engines' (auto-selection) and 'fetch_top_k' (fetch top pages), but fetch_chars and num_per_engine remain unexplained. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the low 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 it performs multi-engine deep research by fanning out across engines, deduplicating and ranking results, fetching top pages, and synthesizing a cited markdown report. This specific verb+resource description effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools web_search and fetch_url.

  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 ends with 'Use for thorough, multi-source research,' providing clear context for when to select this tool over simpler siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

• web_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. It discloses meaningful behaviors: auto-selection of CN/international engines, proxy routing for international engines, and fan-out semantics for 'all'. These go beyond the basic schema, though it does not mention output format or rate limits, so it is not exhaustive.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides distinct value: purpose, proxy/auto-select behavior, and usage examples. No filler or 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?

  The description provides sufficient invocation context for a moderately complex tool (3 params, no output schema). It explains engine choices and the proxy routing. However, since there is no output schema, a note about the result format would improve completeness, but the description is still adequate for correct invocation.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the 'engine' parameter by explaining the 'auto' behavior, the 'all' fan-out, and listing valid values. It does not add detail for 'query' or 'num', but the engine semantics are substantially enriched.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the web across engines.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_url (fetching a specific URL) and deep_research (presumably deeper analysis). The mention of engine auto-selection further narrows 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear guidance on engine selection: use engine='all' to fan out or specify one of the listed engines. It also explains the auto-selection behavior based on query language. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like deep_research or fetch_url, so a fully explicit when-to-use is absent.

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