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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no side effects need restating. The description adds one behavioral detail: the response includes the filter definition. That is useful because no output schema exists, but the description does not go further into error cases or data shape.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and distinguishing return detail are all front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 operation, this is complete. The readOnlyHint covers safety, the ID parameter is fully documented, and the description tells the agent what the response will include. No output schema exists, but the low complexity does not demand more.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents audience_id as 'The audience ID'. The description only restates the ID-based lookup without adding format constraints or validation semantics, so it meets the baseline but adds little over the schema.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('an audience by its ID'), and adds a meaningful detail ('including its filter definition') that distinguishes the response from a plain metadata fetch. This clearly differentiates it from list_audiences and update_audience among the siblings.

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 'by its ID' clearly indicates the tool is for fetching a single audience when the ID is known, and contrasts implicitly with list_audiences. It does not name alternatives explicitly, so it misses the top score, but the usage context is unambiguous for a simple getter.

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