Impact API GET (escape hatch)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'read-only' and 'GET', which signal a non-mutating operation. It also adds context about 'persona-scoped' access. While it doesn't detail response formats or potential rate limits, for a generic read-only escape hatch this is adequate and exceeds the minimum.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences. Each adds essential information: purpose, usage priority, and safety. There is no fluff or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (generic GET endpoint, 3 well-documented parameters, no output schema), the description covers the critical aspects: what it does, when to use it, and that it is read-only. The schema handles parameter details. It could mention that responses are raw API JSON, but for a fallback tool this is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of parameters, each with descriptive text (path, query, paginate). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond that, but it does set the context of 'persona-scoped' which relates to the path. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('GET'), names the resource ('any persona-scoped Impact endpoint'), and clearly positions itself as a fallback for endpoints not covered by curated tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_campaigns and get_campaign, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly instructs 'Prefer curated tools first' and states the tool is for endpoints 'not covered by a curated tool.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, directly addressing the alternative tools.

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