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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is display-only, the human reviews and responds in chat, and multiple operations render as independent tabs in a single widget.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with what is shown and follows with the display-only constraint and tabbing behavior. No filler, though the sentence is dense enough to be slightly hard to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. The description supplies the rendering behavior (tabs, one widget, human-in-the-loop) an agent needs to use it correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the single-vs-array alternative. The description reinforces 'one or more' operations and the tabbed co-display semantics but adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so 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+resource — shows source research, distributions, proposed Minds, draft and training for Audience operations — which is far more informative than the title 'Show Audience Creation'. It distinguishes the Audience domain from the sibling render_* tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with render_study_plan or render_study_results.

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 'display only: the user confirms or asks for changes in chat' implies this is a presentation step with no mutation, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against alternatives like get_audience_creation_progress or the other render_* tools, and no prerequisites.

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