Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query_search_analyticsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Query') but does not state safety properties, idempotency, rate limits, or lack of side effects. More behavioral context is needed.

  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 a clear Args structure, but it could be more front-loaded to provide a quick summary before the parameter list. Every sentence is earned, but overall length is acceptable.

  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?

  Without an output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., clicks, impressions, aggregated data). It also lacks information on error handling, pagination, or data volume expectations, making it incomplete for a query tool.

  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 parameter descriptions in Args add significant meaning beyond the raw schema, explaining format (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD'), options (e.g., dimensions list), and constraints (row_limit max 25000). However, there is a slight inconsistency with the schema default for row_limit.

  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-resource pair 'Query Search Console analytics data for a site,' indicating both the action and the specific data source. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_time_periods or get_search_trends, which might also involve analytics data.

  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 the alternatives. The description only details parameters without suggesting context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision cues.

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

• get_top_performing_contentB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond parameters. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it aggregates data, or any constraints on date ranges. The parameter list does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is well-structured but could be more compact. Overall no unnecessary text.

  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 output schema and sibling tools, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., fields, format) or how it differs from similar tools. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter: site_url example, date formats, metric options ('clicks, impressions, ctr, position'), and default values. However, it does not specify allowed values for metric (schema lacks enum) and could be clearer.

  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 states a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'top performing content', but it does not clarify what constitutes 'content' (e.g., pages, URLs) or differentiate from sibling tool 'query_search_analytics' which may also return content performance data.

  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 parameter explanations but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_time_periods' or 'get_search_trends'. No explicit context for selection or exclusions.

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

• compare_time_periodsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as what the output looks like, how the comparison is computed, required permissions, or side effects. Only row_limit max is mentioned, but overall transparency is low.

  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 concise with a clear opening sentence, but the bulleted Args list adds some overhead. It is front-loaded and every part adds value, though it could be streamlined.

  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?

  Despite the tool having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers parameter format. Missing details include return format, comparison logic, prerequisites (e.g., site verification), and error handling, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

  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_description_coverage is 0%, but the description provides crucial context: date format (YYYY-MM-DD), allowed values for dimensions and search_type, max row_limit, and example for site_url. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

  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 starts with 'Compare Search Console metrics between two time periods,' which clearly states the action (compare) and resource (metrics between two periods). This distinguishes it from siblings like query_search_analytics, which likely queries single-period data.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_search_analytics. The description focuses on parameters without stating when a comparison is appropriate or what to do if other tools would be better.

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

• get_search_trendsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral aspects, but it only states the basic function. It does not reveal that the operation is read-only, or describe error scenarios, data limitations, or return structure.

  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 concise, with a structured 'Args' section that adds value. Each sentence is purposeful, but the parameter list could be slightly tighter by relying on the schema for names.

  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?

  Given the simplicity of the tool (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks context on expected output, error cases, or how trends are computed, which reduces completeness.

  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 has 0% coverage, so the description adds crucial parameter details: format for site_url, date format YYYY-MM-DD, and interval options. However, it omits the default value for interval (week) which is in the schema.

  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 action ('Get'), the resource ('search trends'), and the scope ('over time for a site'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_time_periods' and 'query_search_analytics' by focusing on trends over time.

  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, such as when to prefer trends over time vs. comparing periods or querying analytics. The description lacks any explicit usage context or exclusions.

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

• list_sitesA
  3.5/5.0
  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 only states 'list all verified sites' without detailing any side effects, permissions required, or return format.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.

  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 param-free, simple list tool, the description is adequate but lacks context such as what a 'verified site' is, potential pagination, or the response structure. Completeness is acceptable but not exemplary.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the empty schema fully documents them. The description implicitly confirms no input is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

  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 action (list) and resource (verified sites in Search Console), and distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on analytics and trends.

  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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for its use.

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