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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real value beyond them by decoding the audience_mode values (observation vs targeting vs not set) and disclosing that every audience/exclusion carries a remove_id for remove_entity, which links this read to a specific mutation path.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then two dense sentences that each carry information (mode semantics, remove_id cross-reference). The trailing API doc link is mild filler but the rest is efficient.

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 needn't be spelled out. The description covers the key non-obvious domain concept (audience_mode) and the cross-tool removal linkage, leaving only sibling differentiation as a gap.

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 ad_group_id, campaign_id, and customer_id are already fully documented, including the either/or relationship. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: audiences attached to one campaign or ad group, plus exclusions and the audience mode. An agent can distinguish it from get_audience_lists and get_demographic_targeting by the 'attached to a campaign/ad group' framing, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 rather than stated — the tool clearly reads existing targeting config, and the remove_id/remove_entity note hints at the adjacent removal workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or condition selecting this over get_demographic_targeting or get_audience_lists.

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