Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• hasdata_indeed_job_getJobDetailsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries responsibility: it clearly frames the operation as a read-only 'fetches' and enumerates all returned data. It could have added notes on invalid URLs or availability limits, but for a simple GET-style tool the behavior is adequately disclosed.

  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 compact and front-loaded, but the opening line 'Get Indeed Job Details' repeats what the next sentence and the title already cover. The rest is focused and useful.

  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?

  There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the main returned sections: title, company, location, salary, employment type, posted date, requirements, benefits, and apply URL. It does not address error/edge behavior, but with one parameter this is a minor gap.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds signifficant extra meaning by saying the URL must be the 'viewjob URL' and implying the source is the Indeed endpoint result set, which goes beyond the generic parameter text.

  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 a specific verb and resource: it fetches a single Indeed job posting by its viewjob URL. It also differentiates from the sibling endpoint by noting that these are postings discovered via the Indeed Listing endpoint.

  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 explicitly lists intended use cases such as ATS/CRM enrichment, compensation benchmarking, and resume-to-JD matching. It indirectly positions the tool as the detailed single-listing complement to the listing endpoint, though it does not crank out exact when-not-to-use rules.

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

• hasdata_indeed_listing_getJobListingsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly states this is a search/read operation that returns an array of job objects with specific fields, and explains the offset-pagination behavior of start. It does not mention authorization, request limits, or error behavior, but the core visible behavior is well covered.

  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 starts with a direct summary ('Searches Indeed job listings by keyword and location'), then lists the relevant search controls and return payload, then names end-use contexts. There is 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?

  Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the returned fields and page be behavior. It also explains how the resulting URLs can be consumed by the details endpoint, giving the agent enough situational context to select it for the right work.

  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 already covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is a 3. The description adds context such as relevance/date sorting, country-domain targeting, and offset-based pagination, which aligns with the schema but does not need to carry the same burden given the schema's completeness.

  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 a specific verb and resource ('Searches Indeed job listings') and details the output fields (title, company, location, salary, posted date, job URL, jobKey. It clearly distinguishes this listing tool from the sibling getJobDetails by describing list-level search and URL generation for the details endpoint.

  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 names concrete use cases — job-market dashboards, hiring-trend analysis, sourcing pipelines — and says the output can generate URL lists to feed into the Indeed Job endpoint. It implies when to use the listing tool versus the details sibling, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or include a direct alternative-comparison sentence.

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