ad_manager_google_get_audience_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it does not mention return format, error conditions, or any side effects. Since the bar is lower with annotations, this scores low because the description contributes nothing extra.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It communicates the essential action immediately. While it is minimal, it is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool, and every word earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool, the schema and annotations cover the required parameters and read-only behavior. However, the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., audience details, fields, or response structure) since there is no output schema. The missing return information is a gap, but the core callability is covered. Overall, it is adequate but not complete.

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%: both audienceId and locationId are described in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the rubric, when schema description coverage is high, baseline is 3, and there is no additional value from the description, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get audience by ID' specifies a clear verb (Get) and resource (audience), and the 'by ID' distinguishes it from the plural sibling ad_manager_google_get_audiences. The name also reinforces the Google Ads context. It's specific enough for an agent to understand the primary function, though it omits details about what fields are returned.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ad_manager_google_get_audiences (plural) or ad_manager_google_upsert_audience. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a valid audienceId) or contrast with list/upsert operations. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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