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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly conveys a read-only snapshot of current audience membership, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, or behavior for invalid or missing audience IDs.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description identifies what the tool returns conceptually (contacts in an audience), and the schema covers required parameters and pagination. It is slightly thin on result shape and pagination behavior, but for a low-complexity read/list tool this is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter, including cursor as an 'Opaque pagination cursor' and limit as 'Page size, maximum 100'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the audience/contact context.

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 ('List') and resource ('contacts currently in one audience'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like commsharbor_audiences (listing audiences) and member_add/remove (mutating membership), though it does not explicitly contrast with commsharbor_audience_get.

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 implied: call this tool when you need the current contacts in a specific audience. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as commsharbor_audience_get, so the context is only implicit.

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