get_sponsor_audience

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses important behavior: IG block is always null (backend limitation), the expensive nature (25 credits), and the fixed age breakdown buckets. This enables informed invocation decisions.

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?

Description is concise, covering all necessary details in a few sentences. Front-loaded with purpose and output structure. Slight redundancy in enumerating age buckets could be trimmed, but otherwise efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly documents return structure: two optional blocks (data.youtube, data.instagram) each containing audienceLocations, audienceGender, audienceAvgAge, audienceAgeBreakdown (with explicit bucket list). Also covers cost and platform omission. All essential for agent to use correctly.

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% with parameter descriptions. Description adds value by explaining how to omit platform to get both datasets and clarifying the enum values (though schema already lists them). The cost warning is an extra behavioral cue.

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?

Description clearly states it returns aggregated audience demographics across all sponsored creators, distinguishing it from per-platform audience tools like get_youtube_audience. It specifies output fields and current limitation (IG always null), making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear usage hint: 'Omit platform to request both.' Warns about high cost (25 credits). Does not explicitly exclude use cases or name alternatives, but the context of aggregated vs per-creator audience is implicit given sibling tools.

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