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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: no billing/purchase of property data, monitored Audiences stop growing at the package limit, and monitoring enables Insights and Automations. No contradiction with annotations.

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-loads the core action and confirmation requirement, then packs constraints and return details without filler. Every sentence earns its place by adding operational or safety information.

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?

Given a sparse schema with no output schema, the description covers required and optional parameters, confirmation workflow, monitoring consequences, capacity limits, and return fields. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies criteria as an array of {name,value} objects, name maximum length, monitored default false, and a per-criterion value limit, which fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 saved dynamic Audience. The description clearly distinguishes this write operation from the read/search-oriented sibling tools by naming the artifact and its saved nature.

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?

Explicitly requires user confirmation of both criteria and name before creation, and mandates a specific explanation plus explicit confirmation before setting monitored=true. These are concrete when-and-how guidelines rather than vague context.

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