Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• validate_emailC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations provided, and description only mentions 'real-time SMTP verification' and 'free to use'. Does not disclose that it connects to external servers, potential false results, or side effects.

  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?

  Single sentence conveys core functionality and that it's free. No wasted words.

  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?

  No output schema, so agent doesn't know return format. Missing context about validation results (boolean, details). Sibling tools are different but description doesn't help in tool 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 provides format 'email' and description 'Email address to validate' (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb 'validate', resource 'email address', and method 'SMTP verification'. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are search-oriented.

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

  Usage Guidelines1/5

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

  No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., email finding tools). No mention of limitations, rate limits, or accuracy of SMTP verification.

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

• find_decision_makerA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost (5 credits if found) but fails to mention what happens if not found, rate limits, or any destructive behavior. The description is too sparse for a tool without annotation support.

  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 with a separate note on cost, conveying essential information without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

  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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's primary function but lacks details on response structure (e.g., does it return just email or also name?), usage conditions, and behavioral nuances. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 parameter definitions are fully documented. The description adds context about 'verified email' and credit cost but does not enrich parameter meanings beyond schema. Baseline 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 tool description clearly specifies the action ('Find a verified email'), the target ('decision maker at a company'), and the method ('by role/category'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_email_by_person' (by name) and 'find_company_emails' (multiple company emails).

  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 verified email for a company decision maker is needed by role, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'find_email_by_person' or 'find_email_by_linkedin'. No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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

• find_company_emailsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses that results are verified, limited to 20 emails, and cost 5 credits. However, it lacks details on failure modes 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Two sentences efficiently convey the action, scope, limit, and cost. No extraneous information.

  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 tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, output limit, and cost. The lack of output schema is mitigated by mentioning 'emails'.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. 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 clearly states the tool finds verified email addresses by company domain. It is distinct from sibling tools like find_email_by_person, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

  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 use when you have a company domain and mentions a credit cost, but provides no guidance on when not to use or comparison to alternatives.

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

• find_email_by_personA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the credit cost and implies the email is 'verified', but does not mention failure behavior, rate limits, idempotence, or required permissions. Some transparency is added but significant gaps remain.

  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 24 words. Highly concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant information.

  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 tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the cost and the nature of the result. Minor missing details include behavior when no email is found and whether the tool is idempotent.

  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 restates the parameter inputs indirectly but adds no additional meaning, examples, or constraints 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 action ('Find'), the resource ('verified email address'), and the required inputs ('full name' and 'company domain'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like find_email_by_linkedin, find_company_emails, etc.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the credit cost, but it does not help an agent choose between siblings.

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

• find_email_by_linkedinA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the credit cost, which is useful, but does not mention read/write safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves gaps for an agent assessing side effects.

  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 extremely concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

  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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main use case and a key behavior (credit cost). However, it lacks explicit specification of the return value format or failure behavior, which would improve completeness.

  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% with a clear description and example for the parameter. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific semantics beyond the overall purpose.

  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 primary function ('Find a verified email address from a LinkedIn profile URL') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_email_by_person, which likely use name-based input. The cost mention adds specificity.

  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 LinkedIn URL is available, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., find_email_by_person) or state when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context is provided.

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