Chapa

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the useful qualifier 'public', implying these profiles are accessible without special credentials, but it does not disclose potential limitations, error conditions, or what happens if one handle is invalid.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource, though its brevity edges into under-specification.

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 and minimal parameter documentation, the description fails to explain what the comparison returns, what criteria are compared, or any behavioral expectations. An agent could call the tool with two handles, but it would have little idea what result to expect or how to interpret 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 explaining the parameters. It indirectly maps 'handle' and 'other_handle' to the 'two public Chapa impact profiles', but it does not explain what a handle is, how it should be formatted, or any constraints, leaving room for incorrect invocation.

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 action, 'Compare', and a specific resource, 'two public Chapa impact profiles', making the basic function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_impact_profile and find_profile because it explicitly involves comparing two profiles rather than retrieving one, though it does not detail what aspects are compared.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_impact_profile or find_profile. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'Compare two...' and no exclusions or conditions 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'public profile' scope, which clarifies accessibility, but does not disclose what 'explain' returns or how the explanation is structured. This adds modest context beyond annotations without contradicting 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?

A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The action, target, and scope are all front-loaded, and every word contributes 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and clear annotations, but the lack of an output schema and param-level description means the agent must infer what an 'explanation' looks like and what exactly the handle parameter expects. The description is functional but leaves some gaps in context.

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 clarifies the dimension concept semantically but does not explain the handle parameter at all, and the dimension semantics are already enumerated in the schema. The added value for parameters is 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 ('Explain'), a specific resource ('one impact dimension'), and a scope ('public profile'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_impact_profile (which likely returns the full profile) and explain_verification (which targets verification).

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 a single impact dimension on a public profile, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus get_impact_profile or compare_profiles. The usage context is understandable but left 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, 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds 'public' scope and 'trend', but does not disclose details like time range, output size, or pagination. 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 or redundant wording. Every word earns its place, and it communicates the action, resource, and target efficiently.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the target entity, and public scope. The lack of an output schema means some detail about the snapshot shape is missing, but the description is still sufficiently complete for selection and 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?

The schema provides only a bare 'handle' string with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the expected value is a 'GitHub handle', which is meaningful and sufficient for a single required parameter.

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 states the resource ('public impact snapshots and trend') and target ('GitHub handle'). It differentiates somewhat from the sibling get_impact_profile through the 'history/trend' wording, but does not explicitly contrast the two tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'history' and 'trend': the tool is for historical impact data rather than a current profile. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives like get_impact_profile.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered externally. The description adds that the profile is 'latest public,' implying freshness and no auth requirement, but it does not mention behavior for unknown handles, empty profiles, or what the returned profile contains. 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 sentence where every word earns its place: verb, resource, freshness qualifier, access qualifier, and parameter identity. There is no redundancy or filler.

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-input, read-only tool the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema it leaves the shape of an 'impact profile' undefined and does not address edge cases such as an unknown handle. It would also be more complete with explicit sibling differentiation, given six related 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema only defines 'handle' as a bare string. The description adds meaningful semantics by identifying it as a 'GitHub handle,' which is the key information needed to invoke the tool correctly. It does not specify format or normalization rules, but with a single parameter the core meaning is supplied.

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 (Return), a specific resource (impact profile), and a target (GitHub handle), with 'latest public' adding useful scope. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as find_profile or get_impact_history beyond the word '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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of find_profile, get_impact_history, compare_profiles, or verify_badge. The only usage signal is the implied recency of 'latest,' which is not an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'public' nature of the verification record, which is useful context, but it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or what happens for an invalid hash.

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. Every word contributes to stating the action and target, 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description is mostly adequate: it names the input and the kind of record returned. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify the shape or content of the verification record, and it offers no context about when this lookup is appropriate compared to 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description must compensate. It does add meaning by identifying 'hash' as a Chapa badge hash, linking the parameter to the domain entity; however, it leaves details like where the hash comes from or how to interpret the pattern to the schema.

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 action ('Look up') on a specific resource ('public verification record for a Chapa badge hash'). It is distinct enough from the sibling list at a glance, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar tools like explain_verification.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as explain_verification or find_profile. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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