zuckerbot_list_audiences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While 'list' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or read-only. A clear statement of safety would improve transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage context. No fluff 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 the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (audiences, sizes, etc.) and when to use it. It would benefit from mentioning pagination or error conditions, but completeness is high for a list tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter (business_id). The description does not add additional context about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 explicitly states the tool lists 'all stored Meta audiences' and enumerates specific types (seed, lookalike, sizes, delivery statuses, CAPI source details). It uses a clear verb+resource structure and distinguishes from siblings like deletion or creation tools.

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 two clear use cases: before launching a campaign and for finding IDs for refresh/delete operations. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the positive guidance is sufficient.

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