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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns the platform operation result or an error, saying nothing about what happens if the audience is not archived or whether archived state is validated.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence ('Returns the platform operation result or an error') is near-boilerplate but earns some place by hinting at the response shape.

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?

With no output schema and zero required parameters, the description should state that at least one of audience_name or custom_audience_id is needed and what resolution behavior to expect; it leaves that entirely to the schema. Adequate but with a real gap for an agent choosing between the two identifiers.

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% with full descriptions for both audience_name and custom_audience_id, so baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' framing actually adds a misleading constraint that the schema's name-lookup fallback contradicts, rather than clarifying either parameter.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Restore an archived custom audience by ID") that clearly reads as the inverse of archive_audience. It does not name or distinguish itself from near siblings such as unarchive_ad or unarchive_campaigns, though the resource type does most of that work.

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 guidance on when to use this versus archive_audience, list_audiences, or get_audience_details, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the audience must already be archived). The 'by ID' phrasing also undercuts the schema's documented name-based resolution path without explaining when to use which.

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