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

No annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers little: it does not state what happens when the hash is unknown, whether the audience must be owned by the caller, or any auth requirement. For a lookup keyed by an opaque hash, error behavior is exactly what an agent needs to know and it is absent.

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?

A single waste-free sentence with the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read, though brevity here edges into under-specification.

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 not be explained, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves the agent without the one thing this hash-keyed lookup requires: how to obtain a valid audience_hash and what an invalid one produces. The tool is simple, yet the definition is thinner than that simplicity justifies.

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?

One parameter (audience_hash) at 0% schema description coverage. 'By hash' hints that the value is an opaque identifier but gives no format, source, or how to obtain a valid hash, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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'), resource ('audience'), and scope ('single ... by hash'). 'Single' and 'by hash' implicitly separate it from list_audiences, though the other siblings sharing the audience prefix (get_audience_highlights, get_audience_patterns) are not addressed.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_audiences or the more specific get_audience_patterns/highlights. It offers a clear context but explicitly names no sister tool and no exclusion conditions.

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