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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: the confirm=false dry-run mode. It still omits whether the write is reversible, whether duplicate names conflict, or what permissions are required.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then parameter semantics; no filler. The colon-separated terse style is cryptic in places but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the dry-run and key params are covered. The gap is platform disambiguation and the absence of guidance on when to prefer this tool over the platform-specific audience-creation siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it supplies the string_operator enum values (absent from the schema) and defines membership_days, lookback_days, and confirm. It leaves name, customer_id, and url_contains undefined, so a third of the parameters remain opaque.

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?

Clear verb + resource: creates a rule-based remarketing audience scoped to website visitors by page URL. However it never names the ad platform, so an agent cannot tell it apart from create_meta_website_audience or create_microsoft_remarketing_list in the sibling list.

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?

It hints at workflow via 'confirm=false → dry-run preview', which implies a preview-then-commit pattern, but there is no when-to-use guidance and no explicit routing to the platform-specific audience-creation siblings.

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