Chapa

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the profiles are 'public' and that the comparison focuses on badge headlines. It does not describe return format, ordering, or what happens when profiles are not found, but that is less critical given the read-only annotation.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the comparison criterion is appended efficiently. 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description is serviceable but leaves gaps. It does not explain what the returned comparison looks like, and since there is no output schema, some behavioral disclosure about return values would be helpful. The 'headline each badge draws' phrase hints at the output but does not fully specify it.

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 for the undocumented handle and other_handle parameters. The phrase 'two public Chapa impact profiles' weakly implies both parameters are profile identifiers, but it does not clarify handle format, whether order matters, or what valid values look like. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no parameter documentation.

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 the action ('Compare'), the resource ('two public Chapa impact profiles'), and the specific criterion ('by the headline each badge draws'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_impact_profile or find_profile, which retrieve rather than compare. The phrase 'headline each badge draws' is a bit idiosyncratic but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 the tool is for comparing two profiles rather than retrieving one, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_impact_profile or verify_badge, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level context — that results include sealed v7.4/v7.5 contributions, outcome availability, automatic Quality and optional reviewed bonus — which is genuine behavioral value beyond the annotations, though the terms are unexplained.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good structure, but it is dense with undefined jargon ('sealed v7.4 or v7.5 contributions') that spends words without informing the agent. Efficient in length, weak in information density.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain what an 'explanation' returns and what the handle refers to; it does neither adequately. For a tool with 0% parameter documentation and no return schema, the description leaves essential invocation details missing.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only obliquely implies 'handle' refers to a receipt and 'dimension' is one impact dimension; neither the handle format/source nor the meaning of the enum values is clarified. The enum itself documents the allowed dimension names, but nothing explains them.

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+resource: 'Explain one impact dimension from the selected policy receipt'. An agent can tell it produces a per-dimension explanation, distinct from get_impact_profile or explain_verification. However, the trailing clause ('sealed v7.4 or v7.5 contributions', 'outcome availability') is opaque domain jargon that doesn't sharpen the purpose.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the closely related sibling explain_verification. The phrase 'selected policy receipt' weakly implies a prior selection step but never states the precondition or how to obtain a handle.

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 goes beyond annotations by clarifying that this tool provides an explanation rather than performing a verification action, which is a distinct behavioral trait.

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 filler or redundant phrasing. The verb is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 informational tool, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and its scope. It does not specify the exact response format, but the verb 'explain' strongly implies a natural-language output, which is acceptable given the absence of 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not add unnecessary parameter-related noise.

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 the specific verb 'Explain' and names the exact resource 'Chapa badge verification guarantees and limits', making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling verify_badge, which would perform verification rather than describe it.

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 a usage context — use this when an explanation of verification guarantees and limits is needed, not actual verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like verify_badge or explain_dimension, leaving the routing decision 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with this. It adds the output scope (profile and badge URLs) but does not disclose return structure, error behavior, or any rate limits; not a contradiction.

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-loads the action and input, with no filler. Every word adds value.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup the description conveys the essential workflow: input handle, output profile/badge URLs. It is adequate but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools and any details about output format or failure modes.

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 provides only 'handle' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by identifying the handle as a GitHub handle and as the input to resolve, giving the parameter a meaningful semantic role.

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 action 'Resolve' with a clear resource ('GitHub handle' to 'Chapa profile and badge URLs'). It is self-contained but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_impact_profile or verify_badge.

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 the tool's use case—when you have a GitHub handle and need profile/badge URLs—but gives no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools are provided.

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 the operation as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the output format (Markdown and HTML) but does not disclose other behavioral details such as required authentication, potential errors, or whether the badge status affects the snippet. No contradiction 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It states the action and the deliverable directly, making it easy to scan.

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 with one parameter and annotations cover side effects, so the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of any parameter clarification and the absence of an output schema leave a notable gap for an agent trying to construct a correct call.

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% and the description does not explain what 'handle' means or how it should be supplied. The name suggests an identifier for the badge, but an agent would have to infer whether it's a username, badge ID, or slug, and no format or example is provided.

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 identifies a concrete deliverable ('ready-to-paste Markdown and HTML for a live Chapa badge'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like verify_badge or get_impact_profile, which serve different purposes.

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 the usage scenario (need to embed a live Chapa badge) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, though the specific phrasing gives some contextual signal.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no time window, no pagination, no auth requirements — and 'receipt winners' and 'desired policy/upgrade state' are unexplained.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The brevity only becomes a liability through underspecification, not verbosity.

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?

One required param, no output schema, no annotations burden — yet the description never clarifies the return shape, the time range of 'history', or the meaning of its jargon. It leaves more questions than it answers for a tool an agent must call blind.

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% for the single handle parameter, so the description must compensate. It does identify the input as a 'GitHub handle', which reliably conveys the parameter's meaning, but it gives no format or validity details beyond that.

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 verb+resource ('Return ... for a GitHub handle') is present, but the deliverable is described in opaque jargon ('policy-labelled daily receipt winners'). Nothing distinguishes this from the sibling get_impact_profile, so an agent cannot tell which to pick without opening both.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance at all. With get_impact_profile and compare_profiles as obvious siblings, the absence of any selection criteria is a real gap.

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 readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the fallback path: when no receipt exists it returns scoringStatus and the initial Emerging archetype for registered users. That edge-case behavior is genuinely useful and not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the fallback second, which is a sensible ordering. The prose is dense and stuffed with undefined jargon terms that dilute signal rather than sharpen it.

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, the description bears the full burden of explaining return values, and it does attempt to enumerate them (policy, identity, exact/display points, Quality breakdown, scoringStatus, archetype). But the terms are domain-specific and undefined, so an agent cannot fully predict the response shape or interpret the fields.

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 carry the load; it clarifies that 'handle' is a GitHub handle, which adds real meaning about the identifier's source. However it gives no format, casing, or validation details, so the parameter remains only partially specified.

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 gives a verb ('Return') and a resource ('the selected policy receipt'), but the resource is described almost entirely in opaque domain jargon ('policy receipt', 'v7.4 or v7.5 recorded activity', 'Quality breakdown', 'Emerging archetype'). It also does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_impact_history or find_profile, so an agent cannot confidently pick it apart from the alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (get_impact_history, find_profile, compare_profiles). The only conditional guidance is the degenerate-case fallback ('When no receipt is drawable'), which describes behavior, not invocation 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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the output scope, namely a description of Chapa and a listing of agent-facing tools/entry points, but it provides no additional behavioral details such as auth requirements, response format, or any caveats. This is a modest but useful addition over 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, tightly worded sentence that leads with the main verb and immediately conveys the purpose. There is no redundancy or filler, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 discovery tool with safety annotations, the description adequately conveys what the call returns and why an agent would use it. It does not describe the exact structure of the returned list, but with no output schema that is not necessary, and the scope is sufficiently clear.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter-level details to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 applies because the empty schema already fully documents the input contract.

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 the resource (Chapa) and two explicit actions: describe and list agent-facing tools and entry points. This distinguishes it from sibling profile- and verification-focused tools, which operate on individual profiles rather than site-level capabilities.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention alternatives. However, the name and phrasing imply it serves as an initial discovery/entry point for learning about Chapa's available tools and entry points, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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, covering safety. The description adds the context that the result is 'public', implying no authentication is needed, which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the output format or any additional behavior (e.g., error handling, network calls). Given the annotation coverage, the description adds a modest amount of context, warranting a 3.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. Ideal for quick parsing.

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 with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose but does not specify what the 'public verification result' contains (e.g., boolean, status string, detailed report). Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer the return shape from the name and description. This is a gap that could be filled with a brief mention of the response format. For a low-complexity tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 for the hash parameter. It identifies the parameter as a 'Chapa badge hash', giving it semantic meaning beyond the raw 'hash' name. This helps an agent understand what value to provide. However, it does not explain the pattern constraints or the accepted formats (e.g., 8/16/32 hex chars or UUID-like v7 format), which the schema defines. The description adds some value but leaves room for clarification.

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 the action ('look up'), the resource ('public verification result for a Chapa badge hash'), and the scope (public). This distinguishes it from siblings like explain_verification, which would explain the process rather than return a result. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 (to retrieve a verification result) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like explain_verification or compare_profiles. It gives context that this is a direct lookup, which suggests it should be used when the raw result is needed, but no exclusions or conditions are stated. This falls under 'implied usage' with room for explicit guidance.

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