Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• job_searchA
  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 disclose behavior. It notes 'most options available on Google for Jobs' which hints at limitations, but it does not mention pagination, quota consumption, read-only nature, or result format. This is a significant gap for an unannotated 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, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient.

  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?

  The tool is complex (12 params) and lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain return values or how results relate to sibling tools. Despite rich schema, the description alone leaves the agent without a clear picture of expected output or limits.

  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 each parameter documented in detail (e.g., query examples, allowed values, defaults). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond stating extensive filtering, so baseline 3 applies.

  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 'Search for jobs posted on any public job site across the web' with the specific resource (jobs) and scope (Google for Jobs aggregate). It effectively distinguishes job_search from sibling tools (job_details, job_salary) which focus on specific job info.

  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 establishes that this tool is for searching job listings and highlights extensive filtering, which implies use for discovery. However, it does not explicitly name when to prefer siblings or when-not, though the context is reasonably clear.

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

• company_job_salaryA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. The word 'Get' and 'estimated' indicate a read-only, approximate nature, but the description does not disclose data sources, potential inaccuracies, or behavior when no data is found. It suffices for a simple lookup but lacks deeper behavioral context.

  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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with no redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description gives a clear overview of the core functionality, but it does not explain the return format (e.g., salary range, currency) or explicitly differentiate between this tool and the sibling 'job_salary', leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between them.

  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 provides full 100% coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by naming job_title, location, and years_of_experience, but does not mention company or location_type, nor does it provide any syntax or format details beyond 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?

  Description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clarifies the resource as 'estimated job salaries/pay', scoped to 'a specific company' with optional location and experience. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'job_salary' (which likely covers general salary data) and other job tools.

  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 for company-specific salary queries by emphasizing 'in a specific company', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over job_salary or job_search, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. The context is present but not fully developed.

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

• job_detailsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes a read operation ('Get') with no side effects, but does not disclose prerequisites, auth requirements, or performance implications like batching/quota, which are documented in the schema. The description is honest but adds minimal behavioral context.

  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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and no fluff. It efficiently conveys the scope and examples without unnecessary detail.

  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?

  Although there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of return content, including specific additional info. The schema documents all parameters, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool, though it doesn't mention batching or field projection explicitly (those are in the 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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (batching, allowed values, defaults). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

  Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'all job details', listing concrete additional info (application options, employer reviews, estimated salaries). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like job_search and job_salary, which focus on searching and salary-specific data.

  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 use for retrieving comprehensive details for a specific job but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It is clear enough for an agent to know this is for detail lookup, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• job_salaryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output periods vary based on data availability and includes hourly/daily/weekly/monthly/yearly estimates, providing some behavioral insight. However, it does not mention read-only nature, data accuracy limitations, or error handling, which would add 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?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise detail about output periods. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

  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 tool with no output schema, the description provides key return information (the periods included), which is helpful. It could be more complete by explaining how optional parameters like years_of_experience and location_type affect results, but the core behavior is adequately covered for a simple salary lookup 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by naming job_title and location, but it does not elaborate on location_type or years_of_experience, which the schema already describes. It effectively restates what is in 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 states the specific verb 'Get' targeting 'estimated salaries / pay' for jobs by title and location, which clearly defines the resource and scope. It also mentions the output periods (hourly to yearly), distinguishing it from sibling tools like job_search and job_details, and from company_job_salary by focusing on general salary estimation.

  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 use for obtaining salary estimates by title and location, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like company_job_salary. It lacks exclusions or alternative guidance, relying on the tool name to suggest the appropriate use case.

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