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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: lineage tracking with parent_audience_id and derived_from, pinned segment versions, copied composition, immediate active status, null record_count, optional campaign linkage, and the required 'creator' scope. These details add substantial operational context not already present in the structured fields.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers lineage, copied composition, initial state, recount behavior, campaign linkage, and scope. The density is justified by the complexity of the operation.

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 the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly: authorization scope, resulting-object behavior, lineage semantics, initial record_count state, and the need to call recount_audience for a fresh count.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents audience_id, name, and campaign_id fully. The description reinforces campaign linkage and the source-audience concept, but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: duplicate an existing audience. It also states the resulting object's lineage, composition, active state, and initial record_count, which clearly distinguishes it from create_audience and other sibling tools.

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 makes the use case clear: duplicate an existing audience, optionally link it to a campaign, and call recount_audience when a fresh count is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_audience or duplicate_segment, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive on when-not-to-use guidance.

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