chronicapulse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.10 per endpoint) and coverage, but does not specify read-only nature, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not detailed.

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 moderately concise but includes a bulleted list of endpoints with costs, which adds some structure. It could be tightened to focus on core functionality without pricing details.

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 complexity (18 parameters, no output schema), the description should explain how parameters relate to actions and what the response contains. It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for effective use.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. However, most parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'lang', 'place', 'year') and add little meaning beyond the parameter name. Only 'action' has useful enum details. The description does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 it is a global genealogy and historical archive intelligence API with full-text search across multiple sources. It lists specific endpoints (search, person, obituary, etc.), making the tool's purpose very specific and distinguishable from sibling 'pulse' 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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for usage, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools or when not to use this tool.

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