iMpact 美讯: global PR, training & events

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description need not restate that this is a read operation. It adds useful content scope by enumerating the company details included, but it does not describe the response format, depth, or whether a full profile document is returned.

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 dense sentence that lists many content areas without clear structure. It is compact but front-loads a vague phrase ('What iMpact does') rather than the tool's action, making it less scannable than it could be.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete because it enumerates the topics covered. It could be improved by stating the return format or that it yields a company profile, but no critical calling information is 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?

With zero parameters, there is no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not waste space discussing inputs.

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 lists what information is available about iMpact rather than stating a clear verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves,' so the action is only implied. The resource is clear enough and distinct from siblings like search_case_studies and send_inquiry, but the purpose remains vague as a content inventory rather than a defined operation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description implies it is an informational lookup, but an agent must infer that from the content list alone.

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 only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description must carry return-shape disclosure — and it does, listing client, year, summary, results, outlets and a link, plus the empty-query default behavior. With no output schema, this is valuable context; rate limits, pagination beyond the limit param, and result ordering beyond 'most recent' are not covered.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler: the first establishes what is searchable and over which dimensions, the second discloses the result shape and the empty-query default. The core capability statement is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter, zero-required, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: what fields results contain and what happens with an empty query. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering when a query is supplied.

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 the parameters — including the enum values for business and the limit bounds — are fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the query semantics ('by client, industry, market or keyword') and the empty-query case but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (iMpact's client case studies), then enumerates the topical domains covered (PR launches, media coverage, crisis, GEO, corporate training). This is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools get_company and send_inquiry, which are an entity lookup and a write action respectively.

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?

Names the searchable dimensions (client, industry, market, keyword) and explains the fallback behavior for an empty query (returns most recent), which tells the agent how to invoke it with no criteria. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are functionally unrelated, so there is little to distinguish against.

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 disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it sends an email to a selected team and promises a reply within 24 hours. It does not cover authentication, confirmation behavior, or rate limits, but it adds meaningful detail beyond 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the routing categories, then the response expectation. It contains no redundant or wasted sentences.

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 10-parameter, 4-required contact-routing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, routing options, and expected reply time. It does not explain what the call returns or any post-send confirmation behavior, but it is otherwise sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the 'line' routing categories, which are already fully documented in the schema, and adds no further semantics for the other 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?

The description names a specific action ('Send the user's request') and destination ('right iMpact team by email'), and enumerates the routing categories. It is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings get_company and search_case_studies, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings.

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 team categories imply when to use each routing option, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_company or search_case_studies, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not fully specified.

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