Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• leadbrew_search_companiesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It only states the output fields, omitting details on how results are returned or any 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?

  The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It wastes no words, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the return fields or parameter usage.

  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?

  Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter behavior, pagination (though page/limit are in schema), or the structure of returned data beyond a vague list of fields. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively without inferring from parameter names.

  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?

  All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the return fields, which are already implied by the parameter names and 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 it searches for companies and returns specific fields (name, website, industry, size). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'leadbrew_get_company', which likely retrieves a single company, leaving potential ambiguity about when to use each.

  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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or context for use, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names alone.

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

• leadbrew_get_companyB
  3.2/5.0
  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. However, it only states the basic action and does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, any side effects, or rate limits beyond what is already in the schema (quota for include_employees).

  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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words. It could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness, but it is efficient.

  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?

  Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description gives an overview but lacks details on what fields are included in 'detailed information'. It is adequate for a simple get tool but not fully comprehensive.

  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 clear descriptions for both parameters (id and include_employees). The description does not add new information about parameters, but the schema provides sufficient meaning, so 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?

  The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific company', with a specific feature 'including employee list'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search (leadbrew_search_companies) and lead (leadbrew_get_lead).

  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?

  The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use leadbrew_search_companies instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• leadbrew_search_leadsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses returned fields but lacks details on pagination, result ordering, or search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching). No annotations to compensate.

  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 concise sentences clearly stating purpose and providing a key usage tip, with no redundancy.

  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 schema covers all parameters and no output schema needed, the description is nearly complete. Could mention possible empty results or search types, but adequate.

  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?

  All parameters have descriptions in schema (100% coverage), so description adds minimal additional semantics. 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?

  Clearly states it searches for B2B leads in LeadBrew, lists return fields, and differentiates from sibling tools like leadbrew_get_lead and leadbrew_search_companies.

  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?

  Implies use case via mention of using lead ID for full details, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or provide context like failure scenarios.

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

• leadbrew_usageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description indicates a read-only check but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements.

  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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words; information is front-loaded.

  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?

  Adequate for a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter; could clarify what 'usage history' includes but sufficient given low complexity.

  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 covers the single parameter fully (100%), but description adds no extra meaning or usage context 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?

  Clear verb 'Check' and resource 'API usage and remaining quota'. Distinguishes from sibling tools focused on companies and leads.

  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?

  Implied usage for monitoring quota, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor alternatives.

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

• leadbrew_get_leadA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the input requirement but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or any rate limits. As a retrieval tool, it should explicitly state it does not modify data.

  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 with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides the necessary usage condition. Every word adds value.

  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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (detailed info including email and phone) and the required input (lead ID). No additional context is needed given the low complexity.

  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 fully describes the 'id' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds minor context by reaffirming the ID comes from a previous search and implicitly allowing a LinkedIn handle, but this does not significantly enhance understanding 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?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific lead', and specifies the contents of the returned information (email addresses and phone numbers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like leadbrew_get_company and leadbrew_search_leads by targeting a single lead by ID.

  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 advises that the lead ID must come from a previous search, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as leadbrew_search_leads for broader queries.

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