Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• case_detailA
  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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a full record is returned but fails to mention any safety guarantees (e.g., read-only), error handling for invalid case IDs, data freshness, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal on behavioral traits.

  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 sentence of 25 words, front-loaded with the core action and result. It wastes no words and is easily scannable.

  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 simple, one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the main purpose and key output feature (per-statute breakdown). However, it could be slightly improved by clarifying that it returns a single object or how it handles missing case IDs. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly complete.

  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 covers 100% of parameters and already describes 'case_id' as the WHD case ID from other tool results. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema; it only mentions 'by its case id', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is complete.

  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 retrieves a full record for a single WHD enforcement case by case ID, and explicitly mentions the per-statute breakdown, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like employer_violations (list) or back_wages_summary (aggregation). The verb 'get' is implicit, and the resource is well-defined.

  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 a detailed per-statute breakdown for a specific case is needed, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for bulk queries) or alternatives like sibling tools. The context is implied but not stated.

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

• violations_by_stateA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or handling of empty results. The description only covers basic functionality.

  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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Top WHD enforcement cases in a state') and adds the optional filter concisely.

  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 listing tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and key filters. It lacks details about output format (fields returned) but provides sufficient context for selection.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds ordering context ('ordered by back wages owed') and reinforces the NAICS filter with an example, but does not add significant new meaning 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 tool returns top WHD enforcement cases in a state with violations, ordered by back wages owed, and optionally filtered by NAICS code. It effectively communicates the specific resource and action.

  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 retrieving violation cases ordered by back wages, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like employer_violations or case_detail. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

• back_wages_summaryA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses that computation is client-side over up to 1000 matching cases, adding transparency. However, it does not address rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if more cases exist beyond the cap.

  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 concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and following with constraints. No unnecessary words.

  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 no output schema, the description lists what the tool returns (aggregate totals, employees affected, penalties, case count). It is sufficient for a simple aggregation tool, though explicit output structure could be added.

  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% but the description adds value by explaining the dependency (at least one of employer/state required) and stating the default and range for max_cases, which are not 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 clearly states the verb 'aggregate' and the resources (back wages, employees, penalties, case count) for an employer and/or state query. It distinguishes from sibling tools that likely provide detailed records or other views.

  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 specifies that at least one of employer or state is required, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but implies usage for aggregated summaries rather than detailed case retrieval.

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

• employer_violationsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering behavior ('ordered by back wages, largest first'), return fields (location, findings dates, etc.), and matching behavior (trade name or legal name). No mention of rate limits or side effects, but for a read-only search this is adequate.

  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 with no filler. First sentence states the core function and inputs; second sentence adds ordering and output fields. Information is front-loaded and every word is necessary.

  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 simple search tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers functionality, filtering, ordering, and return structure. It does not mention pagination but the limit parameter partially addresses that. No major gaps for the given complexity.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that employer name matches trade name or legal name, that state is optional, and that results are ordered by back wages. This contextualizes the parameters beyond the schema descriptions.

  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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Search WHD enforcement cases') with clear scoping (by employer name, optionally filtered by state). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'violations_by_state' (which filters only by state) and 'case_detail' (which gets a single case) by focusing on employer name search.

  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 searching by employer name but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings like 'back_wages_summary' or 'violations_by_state'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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