Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• web_searchA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 and does so thoroughly. It discloses multi-backend fallback, automatic record enrichment for package registries, domain filtering, recency filtering, parallel batch execution with deduplication, and explicitly warns that results are untrusted external content to be treated as data, not instructions. This is excellent beyond what the schema provides.

  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-organized with clear headers ('Cuándo usarla', 'Características', 'Notas') and every section contributes practical guidance. It is slightly lengthy but appropriate for a tool with seven parameters and a non-trivial batching model, with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

  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 search tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers invocation, parameter relationships, features like filtering and enrichment, safety guidance for external content, and specific usage tips for query batching. An agent can confidently invoke the tool and interpret its results correctly.

  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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of query and queries, describing how EnriProxy executes batches in parallel and deduplicates by URL, and providing a concrete multi-query example. This goes beyond the schema without being redundant.

  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 begins with 'Busca en la web', which clearly defines the verb and resource. It accurately conveys that this tool performs web searches via EnriProxy, which is conceptually distinct from the sibling web_fetch, though it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with that sibling. An agent can quickly understand the tool's core function.

  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?

  A dedicated 'Cuándo usarla' section lists concrete scenarios: searching for current information, technical solutions, or verifying data. This provides clear context for when the tool should be used, but it does not include explicit 'when not to use' guidance or a direct comparison with web_fetch, which would strengthen the selection process.

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

• web_fetchA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 and does so thoroughly: it reveals best-effort fetching, automatic fallback across strategies, legacy encoding decoding, content limits via max_chars, and cursor-based pagination. It also clarifies that the prompt parameter does not generate an AI summary, preventing incorrect agent expectations.

  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-organized with clear sections ("Cuándo usarla", "Características", "Notas"), front-loads the purpose and usage, and uses bullets for readability. For a tool with 13 parameters, the length is justified; each section and bullet adds operational or decision-making value without filler.

  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?

  The description covers all essential operational aspects: full URL requirement, default max_chars, cursor-based pagination with offset_chars/limit_chars, and the output behavior for include_links and include_metadata. Even without an output schema, it explains truncation, cursor reuse, and section-not-found fallback, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

  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?

  Even though the schema has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains when to use 'main' versus 'full' content with token savings, how format options map to different use cases, the behavior of anchor selection, and how to combine content='main' with format='markdown' for optimal long-article reading. This is well above the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas.

  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 a specific verb and resource: "Obtiene y lee el contenido de una URL" (obtains and reads content of a URL), which clearly defines the tool's function. The "Cuándo usarla" section lists concrete use cases—reading full page content, accessing documentation, articles, or code files—that distinguish it from the sibling web_search without requiring schema inspection.

  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 "Cuándo usarla" section explicitly gives conditions: when full page content is needed, when accessing documentation or code files, and when simpler fetch methods fail due to anti-bot protection. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative web_search or state when not to use this tool, leaving slight room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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