Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• healthA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what is verified (API key and search capability) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or how failures are reported. This is a significant gap for a tool that may reveal system status.

  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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly scannable.

  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?

  For a health check with no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the user gets back (e.g., a status report or boolean). This is missing, though the tool's simplicity somewhat mitigates the impact. The absence of annotations also reduces completeness.

  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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable since none exist.

  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 explicitly states that this tool performs a health check to verify the DeepSeek API key and web search capability. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling web_search tools by focusing on verification rather than performing searches.

  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 purpose implies usage for pre-checking API connectivity and search availability, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling search tools. A clear statement like 'use this before other tools to ensure credentials are valid' would improve this.

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

• web_search_deepA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-step behavior (sub-queries, cross-verification, synthesis) and the output characteristic (citations), plus the latency trade-off. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but this is a search tool, so coverage is solid.

  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?

  Three concise sentences: first states the purpose and mode, second explains the process and output, third lists use cases and the trade-off. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the key identity.

  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?

  For a single-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the mode, process, use cases, and latency. It doesn't explicitly state return structure beyond 'citations', but it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including guidance to be specific and decomposable. The tool description's mention of decomposing into sub-queries reinforces this but adds no new parameter-level detail 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 that this is a deep, high-accuracy web search mode that decomposes questions into sub-queries and synthesizes cited answers. It distinguishes itself from faster siblings by emphasizing accuracy and longer runtime, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  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?

  It explicitly lists suitable use cases: fact-checking, research reports, technical research, and multi-source verification. It also warns that it takes longer, implying faster alternatives exist, but it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name sibling tools.

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

• web_searchA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses the tool's core behavior: it automatically plans multiple searches, reads and verifies sources, and returns cited structured answers. This gives the agent operational expectations, though it does not address rate limits or failure modes.

  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 two concise Chinese sentences: first establishes the tool and its mechanism, second states use cases. No filler; every sentence carries meaning.

  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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how it works, output format, and appropriate contexts. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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 already fully describes the 'query' parameter with a usage suggestion (complete question). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

  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 performs standard online search, with specific behavioral details (multi-search planning, source verification, cited structured answers). The 'standard mode' phrasing hints at differentiation from siblings fast/deep, but it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

  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?

  It specifies suitable use cases (daily queries, news, fact confirmation), giving the agent clear context for when to select this tool. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or contrast with web_search_fast/web_search_deep.

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

• web_search_fastA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses low reasoning intensity, expected 1-2 search rounds, and concise answer style, offering useful insight into trade-offs. It doesn't discuss error behavior or exact output structure, but the disclosed trade-offs are sufficient for a fast search tool.

  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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and packs relevant details about usage and behavioral trade-offs without extraneous words.

  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 simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavior. The phrase '直接给出简洁答案' (directly gives a concise answer) hints at the response format, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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 coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, with a description and example provided. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 this is a web search tool with a fast mode, distinguishing it from siblings through speed and low reasoning intensity. The verb '联网搜索' (web search) and modifier '快速模式' (fast mode) make the purpose unambiguous.

  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 states it is suitable for time-sensitive queries that don't require deep verification, which provides a clear 'when to use'. This also implies not using it for deep verification, effectively giving a when-not via context.

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