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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation Taxonomy. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: an audience is a dynamic segment, not a static list, and the call yields the audience IDs needed elsewhere. This clarifies what the returned data represents without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second explains the audience concept and why the result matters. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary schema duplication.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and a well-documented cursor, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what the tool lists, what an audience is, and what the result is used for. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of the returned fields would have been stronger, but the key value — audience IDs — is explicitly included.

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%, with the cursor parameter thoroughly explained in the schema itself including the warnings about not decoding or editing it. The main description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable because the schema already carries full weight here. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "List the workspace's audiences." It goes beyond the name by defining what an audience is and why this tool matters: it identifies who can be targeted and provides the IDs used by journey triggers and send requests. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audience, which fetches a single audience, and list_audience_members, which lists member profiles rather than audiences themselves.

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 gives a clear use case: when you need to know "who can I target" or need audience IDs for journey triggers and send requests. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion-level guidance, but the intended context is unmistakable.

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