Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• optimize_linkedin_postC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states purpose and a requirement (API key), but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., optimized text, suggestions) or any behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects.

  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?

  Description is brief with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. However, it lacks structure and could be more informative without adding length.

  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 output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return format and behavior. It only states purpose and a precondition, leaving the agent with significant unknowns about how to use the output.

  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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no further 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Tool name and description clearly state it optimizes a LinkedIn post for engagement. The verb 'optimize' and resource 'LinkedIn post' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on analysis and connection requests, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes it is 'PREMIUM' and requires an API key, but provides no context on when not to use it or what alternative tools exist for similar tasks.

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

• analyze_companyA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only lists return fields but does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. For a data retrieval tool, more transparency is needed.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key benefit ('FREE') and concisely states the tool's purpose and output. No unnecessary words.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return values. However, it does not clarify matching behavior (exact name vs fuzzy) or error handling, leaving minor gaps.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter company_name, the schema already provides clear examples. The description adds the 'FREE' qualifier but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. 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?

  Description clearly states the tool analyzes a LinkedIn company page using public data and returns specific fields (employee count, industry, description). The verb 'Analyze' and resource 'LinkedIn company page' are specific, and it is well-distinguished from siblings like draft_connection_request or search_public_profiles.

  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 mentions 'FREE' which hints at a cost advantage, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings are clearly different, but the absence of any usage context reduces the score.

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

• draft_connection_requestA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions 'template-based' and 'no API key needed', but omits output format, side effects, or customization details. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a drafting tool.

  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?

  Two short sentences are efficient and front-loaded, but could incorporate a hint about output (e.g., 'Returns a personalized message') without adding bulk. Still, no wasted words.

  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?

  Adequate for a simple tool with no output schema, but lacks any mention of return value or behavior beyond drafting. Would benefit from specifying that the result is a text message string.

  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% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds no extra parameter context, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already defines each field adequately.

  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?

  Clearly states verb 'Draft' and resource 'LinkedIn connection request message'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (analyze, search, generate lists, optimize posts) by focusing on drafting a connection message.

  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?

  Implies use when needing a free connection request draft without API key, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations. Context from sibling tools helps, but description alone could be more directive.

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

• generate_prospecting_listA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the premium nature and API key requirement, but does not detail potential side effects (e.g., data creation, cost) or whether the tool is read-only. More context on what happens during generation would improve transparency.

  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?

  Two sentences effectively convey purpose and key constraints. No filler words. The critical information is front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

  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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects or output schema), the description is largely complete. However, it does not specify the format or content of the generated prospect list (e.g., names, LinkedIn URLs), which could be useful for an agent. Slight gap, but still functional.

  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%, with descriptions for both parameters (icp_description and count). The tool description adds 'PREMIUM' and 'Requires DEESEEK_API_KEY' but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is appropriate; no significant additional semantics.

  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 action: 'Generate a list of prospects based on your ICP'. The verb 'generate' and resource 'list of prospects' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_public_profiles, which searches existing profiles rather than generating a list from an ICP description.

  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 notes that the tool is 'PREMIUM' and 'Requires DEESEEK_API_KEY', providing important usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like search_public_profiles or analyze_company, though the ICP-based generation implies a specific use case.

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

• search_public_profilesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is free and returns specific fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or result limits. Adequate for a simple 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?

  Two sentences with no redundancy. The 'FREE:' prefix efficiently communicates cost status. Every word is valuable.

  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?

  The description states returned fields, which is sufficient given no output schema. However, it lacks mention of pagination or result count, which would be helpful for a search tool.

  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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description's mention of 'by keyword' mirrors the required parameter.

  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 action (search), resource (LinkedIn public profiles), and returned data (names, headlines, companies). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_company and optimize_linkedin_post.

  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 'FREE:' prefix provides context about cost, and the purpose is clear for when to use this tool (finding profiles). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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