EQIQs Rapport Axis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutation, which is clear, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens on duplicate names. It provides minimal but non-misleading information, hence a moderate score.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and to the point, though it omits necessary detail for completeness, which does not diminish conciseness.

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 description is severely incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters, no annotation, and no output schema. It does not list or hint at the parameters, their valid values, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct request beyond providing a name, making this description inadequate.

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 vaguely refers to 'optional known traits' without enumerating or explaining any of the 9 parameters. It adds no detail about formats, allowed values, or which fields are essential beyond the required name, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 the verb 'add' and the resource 'a person,' making the tool's purpose clear. It also mentions 'optional known traits,' which hints at the optional parameters. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the only creation tool among them, so it is 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_profile, list_profiles). The description implies usage for adding a person, but does not state exclusions or alternatives, 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides meaningful disclosure: it is premium, billed at 5x a normal tool call, and synthesized across all 21 frameworks. This gives cost and sourcing context beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects or auth requirements.

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, 26 words, with the core purpose and the most important constraint (billing) front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Despite being a relatively complex tool with six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description gives no parameter semantics, no invocation examples, and no explanation of what the narrative output looks like. An agent would struggle to form correct arguments.

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 any of the six parameters. The 'one person or a pair' phrase hints at person and compare_with, but focus, length, context, and audience are left entirely to the agent to infer from names.

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 ('write'), resource ('coaching narrative'), scope ('one person or a pair'), and source ('synthesized from all 21 frameworks'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling profile, relationship, and compatibility 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 implies this is for producing a synthesized narrative and labels it as premium, but it never states when to choose it over siblings like score_compatibility or create_profile. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by indicating the profile belongs to the signed-in account holder, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe authentication, errors, or response characteristics.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It is somewhat sparse and noun-phrase-like rather than action-oriented, but it communicates the core distinction 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?

Given the low complexity of a zero-parameter self-profile getter, the description is mostly sufficient to guide selection. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of return format, potential absence of a profile, or error behavior leaves a noticeable gap.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is complete, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the resource as the signed-in account holder's own 21-framework profile, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_profile and list_profiles. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 phrase 'signed-in account holder's own' implies this tool is for accessing the caller's own profile rather than others, so usage context is implied. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_profile/list_profiles or when not to use it.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a non-mutating read operation and full-framework scope, but it does not explain identifier precedence, handling of missing or multiple identifiers, authentication needs, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple read but leaves meaningful gaps.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists lookup keys. Every word contributes value; there is no repetition, filler, or irrelevant detail.

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 description covers the essential purpose and identifiers, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no required parameters, it should provide more guidance on return shape, identifier requirements, and how it differs from get_my_profile. The core is present, but an agent must infer key calling constraints.

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 explain the parameters. It names all three parameters and indicates they are lookup identifiers, which adds real meaning. However, it does not state that at least one identifier is required, nor what happens if more than one is provided, leaving ambiguity in call construction.

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 ('read'), a specific target ('one person'), a breadth ('Full 21-framework'), and the available lookup keys ('profile_id, email, or name'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_profiles and get_my_profile by emphasizing an individual, comprehensive read.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need a full framework read for a single person identified by one of three values. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one person' scope strongly implies list_profiles for multiple people and get_my_profile for the current user.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, return format, error behavior, or any side effects. It does not contradict anything, but it also does not add depth beyond the basic verb.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the optional search capability. There is no fluff or repetition, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the returned list contains (e.g., profile objects), nor does it mention pagination or behavior when no results. It also fails to contextualize when to use this over sibling tools, leaving the agent without enough information for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'search' parameter by stating it can filter by name or email, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, leaving it entirely to inference. Since only half of the parameters are described, the compensation is insufficient.

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 action ('List') and a specific resource ('the user's saved people'), which distinguishes it from singular get_profile/get_my_profile. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from list_relationships or mention the difference between 'saved people' and other profile types, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_profile or list_relationships. It only mentions optional search, which is parameter behavior, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that saved pairings and their scoring contexts are returned, but it does not explain filtering behavior, limit semantics, ordering, pagination, or any 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource while adding the key context detail.

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?

Although this is a simple list operation, the lack of annotation, output schema, and parameter explanations leaves the agent unable to determine how the optional parameters affect behavior or what exactly is returned. The description is not complete enough for confident 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 type information for 'limit' and 'context' with 0% coverage. The description mentions context as a scoring context, giving a slight hint, but it never clarifies whether 'context' is a filter parameter or just an output field, and 'limit' is not addressed at all.

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 verb and resource: 'List saved pairings' and the context each was scored in. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_profiles by targeting pairings rather than profiles.

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 versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended usage is only implicit from the verb 'List.'

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?

With no annotations to describe side effects, mutability, or authorization, the description carries a heavy burden but reveals almost nothing about behavior. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires existing profiles, what the score means, how it is calculated, or what output format to expect.

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 with no filler or redundant wording, and the main action is front-loaded. It earns high marks for conciseness, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the overall definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to construct person_a/person_b correctly, what type of value will be returned, or how to interpret the result, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 fails to explain person_a or person_b beyond 'two people,' leaving ambiguity about whether they are names, IDs, or profile references. The context parameter gains some meaning from the four listed contexts, but the required parameters remain semantically under-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 uses a specific verb, 'Score', with a clear resource, 'two people', and enumerates the intended relationship contexts: business, romantic, friendship, or co-parenting. This makes the tool's core purpose immediately understandable and distinguishes it from the sibling profile/relationship-management 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 implies when to use the tool by listing relevant relationship contexts, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools such as list_profiles or list_relationships, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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