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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: the required `full_access` API key scope and the underlying endpoint/operationId, which helps with auth planning and error interpretation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the permission and endpoint detail trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the API metadata is somewhat incidental to selection.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: the action, the access requirement, and the endpoint. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior on a missing/invalid ID).

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% and the single `id` parameter is only typed as a UUID with no explanation. The endpoint reference `GET /audiences/{id}` implicitly tells the agent this is an audience identifier, but no format, source, or examples are given beyond the type.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (an audience), which cleanly separates it from list_audiences, create_audience, and delete_audience without needing the schema. It does not explicitly mention the siblings, but the action/resource pair is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this versus list_audiences or get_broadcast, nor does it describe prerequisites beyond the API key requirement. The agent must infer that this is for fetching a single audience by ID.

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