audience.raw_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pro-only tier requirement, which is useful, but says nothing about the fact that arbitrary methods (POST/PUT/DELETE) can mutate or destroy data, how errors are surfaced, or any rate limits. For a generic write-capable passthrough this is a serious gap.

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 front-loaded clause with zero waste, and the qualifier is placed immediately after the core purpose. It is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter passthrough, but conciseness itself is not the problem.

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 generic raw-API escape hatch with nested params/payload, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what the base URL assumption is beyond the schema hint, what the response looks like, or which subjects are valid.

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 only 50%: path and method are described in-schema, while params and payload (both nested objects) are undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the two most ambiguous inputs.

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 names the resource (Audience) and the operation (raw API call), and the parenthetical 'escape hatch' clarifies the role. It is clear enough to distinguish from audience.segments.* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with direct.raw_call or metrica.raw_call which follow the same pattern.

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?

'Escape hatch' implies you use this only when no dedicated typed tool exists, and 'pro-only' signals a tier gate. However, no alternatives are named and no conditions/exclusions are spelled out, so the agent must infer when this is preferred over audience.segments.list and friends.

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