impact_identify_champions

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. It only offers a vague quality claim ('no blanks, actionable insights') but does not disclose output format, side effects, permissions, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool that generates insights.

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 that is efficient and free of redundant detail. The phrases 'no blanks' and 'actionable insights' are slightly vague but still serve as meaningful qualifiers. It earns its place, though slightly stronger specifics would improve clarity.

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, no annotations, and a 5-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'champion hypotheses' means, what the output looks like, how to interpret the insights, or any prerequisites. The tool is part of a suite, but standalone it leaves significant gaps.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general context remark ('from company/product context') that maps to product_description and problem_solved, but it does not enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('champion hypotheses') and identifies the input context ('company/product context'). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on other activities like value, market, or message.

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 usage when company/product context is available, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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