audience.upload.errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the pro-only gating constraint; it says nothing about read-only nature, return shape, or whether errors are paginated/truncated for large uploads.

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 sentence with no waste. Appropriate size for the minimal information conveyed, though that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. It omits return contents, auth/tier details beyond 'pro', and error-format expectations.

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 0% and the single upload_id parameter is undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name—no format, source (from upload.start?), or validity constraints.

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?

Names the specific resource (errors for an audience upload job) and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like audience.upload.start and audience.upload.status by the 'errors' suffix. The action verb (get/list) is implied rather than stated, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 call this versus audience.upload.status or audience.raw_call. 'pro-only' hints at a prerequisite tier but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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