mailchimp_audiences_get_growth_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the time granularity ('month-by-month') and data points ('subscriptions and unsubscriptions'), but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, permission requirements, or return structure. For a read operation, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 sentence that is concise, direct, and front-loaded. It communicates the core purpose without waste or redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and a closely named sibling tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between 'list_id' and 'audience', does not mention sort options or pagination, and leaves the response structure vague. The ambiguity with 'mailchimp_lists_get_growth_history' further underscores the need for more context.

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?

The input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as how 'list_id' maps to 'audience' or how count/offset affect results. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('growth history for an audience'), and adds specificity by mentioning 'subscriptions and unsubscriptions'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'mailchimp_lists_get_growth_history', which appears to serve the same purpose, so it lacks explicit sibling discrimination.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'mailchimp_lists_get_growth_history' or 'mailchimp_audiences_get_stats'. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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