Chapa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description only restates read-only comparison and adds 'public' scope; no detail on output format, error behavior, or handling of missing profiles. It doesn't contradict annotations but adds no behavioral context beyond them.

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

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

Single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is appropriately short, but its brevity leaves out essential details; however, conciseness itself is well-handled.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the single-sentence description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the comparison returns, how to format handles, or when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. 'handle' and 'other_handle' are not explained as profile identifiers, nor is the expected format (e.g., username slug) described. The phrase 'two profiles' only hints at the relationship between the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb 'Compare' and a clear resource: two public Chapa impact profiles. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_impact_profile and find_profile, which retrieve a single profile.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain that compare_profiles is for side-by-side comparison while get_impact_profile retrieves a single profile, or mention any prerequisites such as profiles needing to be public.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope: it applies to a 'public profile' and covers exactly 'one impact dimension' (as opposed to comparing or verifying). It does not disclose output format, but with a read-only annotation that is a minor gap.

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

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

Single sentence, front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise. It could add a little more context without bloating, but as written it is lean and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter read-only tool, the description is near the minimum viable: it clarifies scope (public profile, one dimension) but leaves an agent to infer the meaning of 'handle' and the semantics of each dimension value. With no output schema, a sentence about what the explanation returns (e.g., a score plus rationale) would round it out. It is adequate but with clear gaps, so a 3 is fair.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'one impact dimension' – it doesn't define the target profile (the handle parameter) or enumerate the dimension options. However, the dimension parameter has a full enum in the schema (delivery, quality, consistency, breadth, craft), so the allowed values are machine-readable. With two required parameters and no parameter-level help in the schema, some documentation of what 'handle' means would raise this.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Explain') and a resource ('one impact dimension for a public profile'), so an agent knows this is an explanation/read tool for a single dimension. It does not, however, differentiate from siblings (especially explain_verification, which could plausibly overlap), so it is clear but not sharply distinguished.

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

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

The description implies usage: call it when you need an explanation of one impact dimension of a public profile. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Given the siblings (compare_profiles, explain_verification, profile listings), there is real ambiguity about which explanation tool to pick, so clearer routing guidance would help.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what the explanation covers (guarantees and limits) but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as whether it performs a live check or returns static content. This is acceptable given the low complexity and existing annotations.

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

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

A single well-formed sentence states the core action and subject with no filler. It is directly front-loaded and every word carries meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only explanation tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its purpose and scope. It might benefit from a phrase clarifying that it does not verify a specific badge, but overall completeness is high.

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

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

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is fully complete. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parametric meaning; the baseline of 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Explain') with a clear resource ('Chapa badge verification guarantees and limits'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_badge and explain_dimension, which target different actions or subjects.

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

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

The purpose is clear enough to infer when to use it, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with verify_badge or other siblings. No direct guidance on 'use this when' or 'instead of that' is provided, leaving selection to inference.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the operation is a resolution to URLs, giving the agent a sense of the return type. It does not mention not-found behavior or input normalization, but for a read-only lookup this is a minor gap.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key verb 'resolve' appears first, followed by the input and output. Every word contributes meaningful content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple tool with one read-only parameter and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does say 'profile and badge URLs', which is adequate for a resolver. Minor missing details like error handling and handle formatting do not drastically impair usability given the low complexity.

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

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

The schema only lists a string 'handle' with no description, so coverage is 0%. The description adds the critical meaning that this is a GitHub handle, not a Chapa username or other identifier. However, it does not specify the exact accepted format (e.g., bare username vs. '@' prefix vs. full URL), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation – 'resolve' – with a clear resource and output: a GitHub handle to Chapa profile and badge URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_impact_profile or verify_badge, which retrieve profile data or verification status rather than URL links.

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

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 such as compare_profiles, get_impact_profile, or verify_badge. The phrase 'GitHub handle' implies the input scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return value is ready-to-paste Markdown and HTML, but it does not disclose details like what happens for invalid handles or whether the output requires any prerequisite. This is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but not especially rich.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and the deliverable, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, annotations, and single parameter, the description covers the main purpose and output format adequately. The main gap is that it does not define 'handle', but otherwise an agent has enough context to know what the tool does and what it returns.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'handle' parameter. It does not: the description never states what 'handle' refers to, what format it should be in, or how it relates to a Chapa badge. The parameter name offers some hint, but the meaning is largely left to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('ready-to-paste Markdown and HTML for a live Chapa badge'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It stands apart from siblings like verify_badge or get_impact_profile, because it is specifically about obtaining embeddable badge markup.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need an embed snippet for a Chapa badge. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools for related tasks such as explaining or verifying a badge.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'public' scoping, which is useful context about data visibility, but it does not disclose output format, time range, or pagination behavior. This is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but not rich.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the operation, resource, scope, and parameter in a compact form.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has one parameter, and annotations cover safety, so the description is mostly complete. The main gap is that with no output schema, 'snapshots and trend' leaves the exact return shape somewhat vague, but for a lightweight retrieval tool it is likely sufficient.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'handle' as a GitHub handle, adding meaning beyond the bare string schema parameter. With only one parameter, this is sufficient clarification, though it does not mention format or normalization.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('public impact snapshots and trend') scoped to a GitHub handle. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_impact_profile by implying historical/trend data rather than current profile data, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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

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

The description implies this tool is for historical snapshots/trends, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over get_impact_profile or other siblings. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the use case solely from the word 'history.'

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting the result is 'public' (implying no auth needed) and 'latest' (temporal scoping). No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all necessary information with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not explain edge cases like missing handles or response shape, but the low complexity and annotations make these gaps less critical.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the 'handle' parameter. It does so by specifying it is a GitHub handle. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema type, though it could offer more detail on formatting or validation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('latest public impact profile') and clearly scopes it to a GitHub handle. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_impact_history by specifying 'latest'.

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

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

The context is clear: use this tool when you need the current/latest public impact profile for a GitHub handle. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds context that the tool returns a description and a list of entry points, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like whether the list is exhaustive or dynamic. With annotations covering the safety profile, a moderate score is appropriate.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. It states the core action and the deliverable without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent can expect: a textual description of Chapa and a list of its agent-facing tools and entry points. While it could be more explicit about the format or whether it's a complete enumeration, for a no-parameter read-only tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for explaining parameter meaning. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 when there are no parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps since there is none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Describe', 'list') and resource ('Chapa', 'agent-facing tools', 'entry points'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the overall site capabilities rather than individual profiles, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

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 its alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the tool to call for an overview before using specific profile tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the trait that the record is public, suggesting an open lookup without state changes. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description plus schema and annotations is mostly sufficient to call the tool correctly. A small gap is that it does not describe what the verification record contains or how not-found results behave, which could matter without an output schema.

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

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

There is only one parameter, hash, and the schema provides no per-parameter description. The tool description adds domain meaning by identifying it as a Chapa badge hash, but the allowed format is left to the schema pattern. This is adequate but minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action (look up) and a specific resource (public verification record for a Chapa badge hash). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like find_profile or explain_verification because the scope is tied to a badge hash.

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

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

The description implies when to use it: when an agent has a Chapa badge hash and needs its verification record. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it name alternative sibling tools, so usage guidance is present but not thorough.

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