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

Annotations declare the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds a genuinely important trait beyond them: tester generation happens synchronously as a side effect of audience creation, and both the audience and the new testers are returned. It stops short of noting latency, cost, or approval requirements for generated testers.

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 with no filler, front-loaded on the create action and its synchronous side effect. Slightly more room could have been spent on the many undocumented parameters without hurting readability.

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 not be spelled out, but for a 19-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and 11% schema coverage the description is far too thin — an agent has no way to know what most targeting fields mean or how they interact. The synchronous-generation note is the one substantive addition.

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?

19 parameters at 11% schema description coverage means the schema itself documents almost nothing, so the description must carry the load — and it does not. It gestures at filter categories (age, gender, geography, demographics) but leaves roles, languages, industries, techLiteracy, income, maritalStatus, educationLevel, employmentStatus, isReusable, customDetails and more completely unexplained. Far more compensation is warranted.

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 and resource ('Create a new audience in the caller's Uxia workspace') and immediately discloses the non-obvious secondary effect of synchronously generating AI testers. It also defines what an audience is (targeting filters for recruiting testers), which distinguishes it clearly from read-only siblings like list_audiences.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by 'Create a new audience' and the recruitment framing, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as list_audiences or set_test_audience, nor does it mention prerequisites like workspace permissions. Adequate but no explicit routing guidance.

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