audience.upload.status

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does almost nothing: it notes a pro-only requirement but says nothing about polling behavior, terminal vs in-progress states, expiration of job status, or auth needs. A status endpoint's whole value is knowing what states it reports.

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?

Five words, fully front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 one-parameter tool this is thin: no output schema exists, so return values (status codes/fields) are undocumented, and the origin of upload_id is unstated. An agent can guess but cannot call this confidently from the description alone.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate and does not – it never explains that upload_id is the identifier returned by audience.upload.start or what format it takes. Only the parameter name itself conveys meaning.

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?

States a specific resource (upload job) and function (status) that an agent can distinguish from close siblings audience.upload.start and audience.upload.errors. The 'Audience:' prefix is namespace noise, but the core 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 polling elsewhere or versus audience.upload.errors, and no indication that upload_id comes from audience.upload.start. Only the '(pro-only)' tag hints at a precondition.

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