Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• build_company_listA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses latency and success rates for resolve_domains, matching behavior (whole-word vs substring), the monthly universe rebuild, per-company billing, and the need to check domain_status/domain_confidence. This is extensive and adds significant value without contradicting annotations.

  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 dense single paragraph but is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence provides useful detail. However, it could be more scannable with bullet points or short sections given its length, earning a 4 rather than 5.

  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, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It mentions domain_status and domain_confidence, but does not outline the overall result structure (e.g., company fields). For such a configurable tool, this is a notable gap, though the core use cases and side effects are well documented.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Although the schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches several: role_keywords gets concrete examples of whole-word matching, location_contains explains the substring test with a counterexample, resolve_domains notes time and success rate, and max_companies is framed as a cost dial. This exceeds the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 opens with 'Build a list of companies from a market definition, in two modes,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly names the two modes (hiring, filings) and details what each returns, effectively distinguishing the tool's behavior without needing sibling comparisons.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It provides concrete guidance on when to use each mode: hiring for live job boards, filings for SEC filings. It also warns against using refresh_universe ('rarely what you want'), explains billing implications of max_companies, and notes token/credit requirements—clear context for usage and parameter selection.

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