Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• google_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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'retrieves rich results' and lists result types, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with 19 parameters and no annotations, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

  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 concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second enumerates the result types. There's no wasted language or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the most critical information about when to use the tool.

  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 (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (format, structure of results), doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, and provides no guidance on parameter combinations or search strategy. For a sophisticated search tool with many options, users need more context about expected outputs and behavioral constraints.

  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 19 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide usage examples for combinations, or clarify semantics. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

  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's purpose: 'perform web searches via Serper API and retrieve rich results.' It specifies the action (perform web searches) and resource (web search results), and lists the types of results retrieved (organic search results, people also ask, related searches, knowledge graph). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'scrape' - a search tool vs. a scraping tool are conceptually different, but the description doesn't mention this distinction.

  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. There's no mention of when this search tool is appropriate versus other search methods or the sibling 'scrape' tool. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or limitations is provided. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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

• scrapeC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves content and metadata, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., timeouts). For a web scraping tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

  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 and front-loaded, stating the core functionality in the first sentence. It uses two sentences efficiently to cover outputs and metadata. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating primary and secondary outputs).

  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 tool's moderate complexity (web scraping with metadata), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and outputs but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return format specifics. With 100% schema coverage, it meets basic needs but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.

  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 both parameters ('url' and 'includeMarkdown') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions retrieving markdown content optionally but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. 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's purpose: 'scrape a webpage and retrieve the text and, optionally, the markdown content' plus metadata extraction. It specifies the verb ('scrape'), resource ('webpage'), and outputs (text, markdown, JSON-LD, head metadata). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'google_search', which likely serves a different search function rather than direct webpage scraping.

  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. It mentions what the tool does but doesn't specify scenarios for its use, prerequisites, or comparisons to the sibling 'google_search' tool. There's an implied usage for extracting content from a webpage, but no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations.

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