Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_leadsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It is silent on key aspects: whether the search is read-only, how pagination works (despite limit/offset params), timeout behavior, and response structure. The agent is left guessing about side effects and constraints.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very concise (8 words), but for a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, it is overly sparse. Important context like pagination or output format is omitted, making it less useful despite brevity.

  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?

  Despite exhaustive schema coverage, the description fails to explain how to chain filters, handle pagination, or interpret results. No output schema exists, and the description does not compensate. The tool's complexity (11 params) demands more explanatory context.

  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 schema provides adequate meaning for all 11 parameters. The description adds only the phrase 'ICP filters', which loosely groups the filters but adds no new semantic value beyond what the parameter descriptions offer.

  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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('leads') with a filtering criterion ('by ICP filters'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_companies' or 'get_lead_by_url', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_companies' for company-level search, 'get_lead_by_url' for single lead lookup). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• get_lead_by_urlC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or side effects. It simply states the tool gets a lead, offering no behavioral insight.

  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 extremely concise at 5 words, with no wasted text. It front-loads the purpose, though it could benefit from slight expansion.

  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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values or the effect of optional parameters, leaving some 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions. The tool's own description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'Get Lead by LinkedIn URL' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a lead using a LinkedIn URL. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_leads, which also deal with leads.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_leads or other siblings. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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

• healthC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only health check but does not explicitly state that no resources are modified, nor does it describe potential side effects, error conditions, or the nature of the response.

  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 efficient and front-loaded. However, it contains a typo ('Generect' instead of likely 'Generate'), which slightly detracts from professionalism without obscuring meaning.

  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 has no output schema and 2 optional parameters. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., status code, success flag) or how to interpret results. Additional context about the lead-by-link endpoint and typical usage is missing, leaving the agent underinformed.

  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 both parameters ('url' and 'timeout_ms') are already described in the schema with clear explanations. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

  The description states the tool performs a health check using a 'lead-by-link request', which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_lead_by_url', leaving some ambiguity about the exact distinction.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_lead_by_url). The description does not specify that this is a lightweight connectivity check, nor does it exclude scenarios where more detailed lead data is needed.

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

• generate_emailB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function, such as error handling or rate limits.

  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, efficient sentence. However, it could be more structured to include usage hints.

  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?

  Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, or timeout handling, leaving significant 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each 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 tool generates an email using first/last name and domain, which is distinct from sibling tools like search_leads or get_lead_by_url.

  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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• search_companiesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and fails to mention critical traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior (despite parameters like 'limit_by' and 'offset_by'), data freshness, or permission requirements. This lack of detail limits transparency.

  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, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. While it is efficient, it could be slightly longer to include essential behavioral hints without becoming verbose. For a straightforward search tool, this level of conciseness is adequate but not exemplary.

  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 the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, default behavior, ordering, or how parameters interact. An agent would struggle to use the tool effectively without additional inference or trial and error.

  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 has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the tool description does not need to elaborate further. The description mentions 'ICP filters', which broadly aligns with parameters like industries, locations, etc., but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. 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 action ('Search'), the resource ('companies'), and the method ('by ICP filters'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'search_leads' tool, which targets leads. The term 'ICP filters' is specific enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose.

  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 when searching for companies via ICP criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_leads'. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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