Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_web_harvest_leadsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states what information is returned but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, or what happens when no leads exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the core function, the second details the return information. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from return details.

  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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks important context: no output format details, no error handling information, no guidance on when to use versus siblings, and incomplete behavioral transparency. For a data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should do more to explain what 'detailed information' actually means in practice.

  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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (status with enum values and limit with default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify semantics. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

  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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the leads collected by your web harvest agent' specifies the verb (get) and resource (leads from web harvest agent). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_web_harvest_status' (which likely returns status info) and 'run_web_harvest' (which initiates harvesting), but doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The description is specific about what information is returned (company names, websites, contact details, social media profiles).

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it instead of 'get_web_harvest_status' or 'run_web_harvest', nor does it provide context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a harvest must be completed first). The only implied usage is retrieving leads, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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

• run_web_harvestA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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. It describes key actions ('search Google', 'collect leads', 'creates or updates agent') and output data, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. The mention of agent management adds some context, but behavioral traits are not fully transparent.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently details the output in the second. It avoids redundancy and uses clear language, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the output details into the initial statement without sacrificing clarity.

  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 complexity of a tool that performs web harvesting and agent management, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output data but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error cases, and how the agent creation/update works. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

  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%, so the input schema fully documents the three parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints not in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search Google', 'collect company website leads', 'creates or updates your web harvest agent') and resources ('leads with company names, websites, emails, phone numbers, and social media profiles'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_web_harvest_leads' and 'get_web_harvest_status' by emphasizing the active harvesting and agent management functions.

  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 lead generation from Google searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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

• get_web_harvest_statusA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what information is returned (status and counts) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, or how frequently the status updates. The description is functional but lacks operational 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what information is returned. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify the format of the status response or potential error conditions, leaving some operational gaps.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

  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 specific verb ('check') and resource ('web harvest agent'), specifying what information is retrieved (running status and lead counts). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on status monitoring rather than getting leads or initiating harvests.

  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 context (monitoring ongoing harvest operations) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_web_harvest_leads' or 'run_web_harvest'. No explicit 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.