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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the authenticated-workspace scoping detail and reinforces non-modification, but does not disclose return format, failure modes, or permission requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no filler; the retrieval purpose and non-modifying behavior are front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the read-only annotation, but it reinforces the key constraint efficiently.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action, scope, and non-mutating nature. The only meaningful gap is lack of detail on the identifier format and return payload, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 there is one required string parameter, so the description must carry semantic weight. It says the audience is identified 'by its identifier,' which maps the parameter to the audience ID, but it gives no format, example, or validation guidance for the id value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('saved audience settings') and scopes it to the authenticated workspace by identifier. It clearly distinguishes reading from the sibling save_audience and delete_audience actions, though it does not name those alternatives 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?

The phrase 'Does not modify it' implies a read-only use case and helps distinguish it from save_audience or delete_audience, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus those alternatives. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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