Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_fetchA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses failure modes (JS-rendered SPAs, paywalls, timeouts), latency (~0.5s per retry), and the expected retry behavior. It also explains the cleanup of boilerplate/ads/nav, so the agent knows what to expect.

  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: purpose first, then usage guidance, then a detailed failure handling section with bullet points. Each sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the complexity of the tool's failure behavior. No fluff.

  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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: input, output, failure modes, retry strategy, and integration with web_search. It is self-contained and leaves no ambiguity 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 has one parameter 'url' with description 'The URL to fetch'. The tool description adds contextual usage (e.g., URLs come from search results) but no new format constraints or additional semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb ('Fetch'), resource ('URL'), and output ('clean, extracted text content'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'web_search' by advising to use search first then fetch specific URLs. The purpose is precise and actionable.

  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?

  Explicitly says when to use web_search first and then fetch, and provides a detailed retry strategy: try at least 3 URLs from different domains, retry silently, and common failure causes. This is comprehensive guidance beyond a simple description.

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

• web_searchA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description fully discloses re-ranking by embedding similarity, multiple engines, tokenizer issues, noise causes, and the lack of full content. Also mentions numeric data cross-verification and failure handling.

  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?

  Very long but well-structured with sections, examples, and warnings. Each sentence adds value, though some repetition exists. Impressive detail without being bloated.

  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?

  No output schema but explicitly states returns titles, URLs, snippets. Covers edge cases, iteration strategies, query reformulation, and cross-verification. Highly complete for a complex search tool.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant meaning: explains topic parameter's use to bypass dictionary, freshness parameter's advantage over date terms, and real-world use cases for exclude/include domains.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool searches the web via multiple engines returning ranked titles, URLs, and snippets. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling web_fetch by noting it does not return full page content.

  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?

  Provides extensive guidance: iterative search strategy, when to fetch vs search, query reformulation patterns, language switching, and domain filtering. Explicitly contrasts with web_fetch and advises on when to use each.

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