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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations only flag destructiveHint=true, but the description explains what destruction means ('Revocation stops new work at checkpoints; completed changes remain') and who may act ('Staff cannot self-grant'). It does not restate the idempotency hint, which the schema's requestKey covers. No contradiction with the declared hints.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the authorization rule, the revocation semantics, and the scope boundary. Every clause earns its place with no padding or repetition.

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 five-action mutation tool with a full output schema and complete parameter coverage, the description supplies the behavioral essentials (authorization, revocation semantics, exclusions). The one gap is that the action set and the per-action permission rules live entirely in the schema enum description rather than being summarized.

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% and every action-specific parameter is documented in the schema (reason, grantId, expiresAt, requestKey, cursor, audienceId). The description's only related signal is 'expiring', which adds nothing to the schema's 'expiry within 30 days'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: managing owner-issued, expiring staff access to one Audience's composition and receipts. It also carves out scope ('No membership, growth, deletion or billing changes'), which separates it from the other audience/study siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or mentioning that this is a five-action tool (list/grant/revoke/activity), which the schema carries instead.

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?

'Staff cannot self-grant' plus 'owner-issued' imply the authorization context for when grant/revoke is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs. an alternative tool or action. The action enum descriptions carry the operation-selection guidance, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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