Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the search engine (DuckDuckGo), describes the structured format of results (titles, URLs, snippets), and mentions the return type (SearchResponse). However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, behavior, args, returns) and appropriately sized. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be more concise since they largely duplicate schema information. The front-loaded purpose statement is excellent.

  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 (6 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, but with an output schema (SearchResponse), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return type. The main gap is lack of operational constraints (rate limits, errors) which would be helpful despite the 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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by listing all parameters with brief explanations, but doesn't provide significant additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The parameter explanations in the description are largely redundant with 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 tool's purpose: 'Search the web using DuckDuckGo' with specific verb ('search') and resource ('web'). It distinguishes itself by specifying the search engine (DuckDuckGo) and the structured nature of results. With no sibling tools, this level of specificity is excellent.

  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 context through parameter explanations (e.g., region for localization, safesearch for filtering), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools mentioned, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical, but still represents a gap in proactive usage direction.

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