Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• deep_search_newsA
  3.6/5.0
  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 fetches full article content and returns consolidated results, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'consolidated results' actually means in terms of output format. For a tool that performs external API calls and content fetching, this is a significant gap.

  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 perfectly concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence explains the complete workflow, and the second sentence provides the optimization context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a tool with no annotations and no output schema that performs external API calls and content fetching, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (what 'consolidated results' means), doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and limitations given the complexity of the operation.

  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 three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the general purpose but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, interactions, or best practices. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all 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 ('searches for', 'fetches full article content', 'returns consolidated results') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'optimized for news and current events' and mentioning the Google Custom Search API. It goes beyond just restating the name to explain the full workflow.

  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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('optimized for news and current events'), which helps differentiate it from the generic 'deep_search' and 'google_search' siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide specific alternatives for non-news searches.

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

• deep_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it mentions 'retry logic for reliability,' 'advanced content extraction (Readability algorithm),' and 'fetching the FULL content from top results.' However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling details, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It starts with the core purpose, adds key capabilities (content extraction, search types), and ends with reliability features. No wasted words, and the structure flows logically from general to specific aspects.

  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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job covering the essential behavior and scope. It explains the comprehensive search nature, content extraction, search types, and reliability. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of consolidated content), which is a minor gap for a tool with rich functionality.

  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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'include_domains' or 'exclude_domains' affect results). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have enhanced understanding of parameter interactions.

  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 'comprehensive web search using Google Custom Search API' with specific capabilities like 'fetching the FULL content from top results using advanced content extraction (Readability algorithm)' and 'returning consolidated content.' It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning specific search types (web, news, images) and content extraction features that likely differentiate it from 'google_search' and 'deep_search_news'.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by stating it 'supports web, news, and image search types' and performs 'comprehensive web search' with 'advanced content extraction.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide direct alternatives to sibling tools like 'deep_search_news' or 'google_search,' though the mention of search types implies some differentiation.

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

• google_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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a read-only search operation (implied by 'search'), returns only snippets (not full content), and is optimized for quick lookups. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first defines the tool's purpose and behavior, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the behavioral scope (snippets only) and providing clear usage guidelines. However, it doesn't describe the format or structure of the returned snippets, which would be helpful given the lack of 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 performs a 'Simple Google search for quick lookups' with the specific scope of 'Returns snippets only without fetching full page content.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'deep_search' by contrasting the snippet-only output versus full page content retrieval.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool ('for quick lookups') and when to use an alternative ('For deep research with full page content, use deep_search instead'). This clearly defines the appropriate context and excludes scenarios better handled by the sibling tool.

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