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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it provides configurations, targeting, size, and performance, but does not disclose whether the response is a list or single object, nor any potential side effects. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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: the first states the core purpose, and the second (USE FOR) gives usage scenarios. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema. The description lists the categories of information returned but does not specify the exact response structure or whether it returns a list or a single item. Given the absence of an output schema and the ambiguity around 'ID/name' (only name is available), the description is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 all parameters (name, page, size, sort) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds a minor hint about pagination and filtering, but does not explain the sort parameter or clarify that 'ID' is not actually a parameter (only name is). This is a baseline score given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves custom audience information from the Metadata platform, listing specific aspects: configurations, targeting criteria, size metrics, and performance. It also specifies use cases: listing with pagination/filtering, getting by ID/name, analyzing configurations, and reviewing size/performance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_audience or archive_audience.

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 includes a 'USE FOR' line that explicitly lists when to use the tool: listing audiences with pagination/filtering, getting by ID/name, analyzing configurations and targeting, and reviewing size/performance. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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