Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it aggregates from 200+ engines, returns multiple result types (answers, suggestions, corrections, infoboxes), and states that results are cached for 60 seconds. No contradictions with 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds valuable information: result types, usage tips, exclusions with alternatives, and caching. No redundant or wasteful content.

  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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, its scope, when to use it, how to focus results, what it returns, and its limitations. The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to duplicate that.

  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 fully describes each parameter. The description adds minimal but useful guidance about two parameters ('categories' and 'pages'), but does not significantly enhance the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web using SearXNG metasearch engine.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it is not for autocomplete suggestions or discovering engines/categories, naming the correct alternatives. This differentiates it from 'autocomplete' and 'engine_info' tools.

  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 usage guidance: it states to use 'categories' to focus on specific content types, 'pages' for more results, and explicitly says it is not suitable for autocomplete or discovering engines, directing users to alternative tools. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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

• engine_infoA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Response is cached for 5 minutes. Does not perform any web search.' This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's side-effect-free, cacheable behavior and its non-search nature.

  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 concise and well-structured, opening with the primary purpose, followed by the return format, usage guidance, and a clarifying note about caching and non-search behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

  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 this is a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return shape, usage timing, caching, and exclusions. It fully prepares the agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description appropriately focuses on the returned data structure ('list of enabled engines grouped by category') rather than parameters. Baseline for 0 params 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 tool's function: 'Get available search engines and categories from the SearXNG instance.' It specifies the resource and the nature of the output. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'Does not perform any web search — use the search tool for that.'

  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: 'Use this to discover what engines and categories are available before calling search with specific engines or categories filters.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool versus the search tool, making usage context unambiguous.

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

• autocompleteA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that it 'Makes an external API call to the configured autocomplete backend (e.g., Bing, Google)', and explains behavioral nuances like single characters returning broad suggestions and sentences returning none. No contradiction with 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?

  Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, parameter tips, and behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and stays succinct without redundancy.

  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?

  For a one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, exclusions, parameter behavior, and external side effects. Nothing essential is missing.

  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?

  The schema already describes the query parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds critical semantic guidance: 'Best results come from 1-2 meaningful keywords', 'Single characters return overly broad suggestions; full sentences return none' – meaningfully enriching parameter understanding.

  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 opens with 'Get search query suggestions from SearXNG', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it is not for full web search (use search tool) or engine discovery (use engine_info tool).

  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?

  It explicitly states when to use ('Use this to discover relevant search terms before performing a full search'), provides query-format guidance (1-2 keywords, avoid single chars/full sentences), and names alternatives (search, engine_info) with exclusions.

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