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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: what fields come back and the prerequisite skill call before mutation, though it omits error behavior for a bad id or cross-workspace mismatch.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the one workflow constraint. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully lists the returned fields, which is exactly what's needed for a get-by-id tool. The main gap is the undocumented workspace_id, which leaves an agent guessing about scoping.

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 coverage is only 50%: audience_id is well documented with provenance (create_audience, peerAudiences), but workspace_id has no description anywhere. The description's 'by id' adds nothing about either parameter and does not compensate for the undocumented workspace scoping.

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 (returns an audience by id) and goes further by enumerating the returned payload fields (config.expression, name, description, tags, audit fields). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_audience_model_context or preview_audience, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional workflow: call load_audience_skill first when the intent is to modify the returned expression. It does not explain when to prefer this over get_audience_model_context or preview_audience, so alternative routing is only partially covered.

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