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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full load, and it delivers the two facts an agent most needs: read-only, free, and that contact details are masked until purchase. It omits rate limits, pagination defaults, and what the masked records actually contain.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the masking caveat placed where it matters most. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the access/masking model well but leaves pagination behavior and parameter usage entirely to an undocumented schema. Adequate but with a clear 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 0% for all three parameters. 'Paginated' loosely implies limit/offset, but their defaults, ranges, and formats are undocumented, and the required 'slug' parameter is never explained or tied to the set identifier.

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: a paginated preview of contacts inside a marketplace set. It is clear enough to separate from get_audience_set (set metadata) and buy_audience_set (purchase), though 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?

'Preview' plus 'masked until the set is purchased' implies the when: inspect before buying. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_audience_set, preview_buy_audience_set, or list_audience_sets, and no prerequisites are given.

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