zernio_get_audience

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

The description lacks annotations and gives only a generic 'Get details' phrase. It does not disclose what details are returned, whether the operation is readonly (though implied), required permissions, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool, minimal transparency is provided beyond the verb.

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 no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of output schema, the description should hint at what the returned details contain (e.g., 'including name, size, and targeting criteria'). The current description leaves the agent guessing about the response structure, making it incomplete for informed usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'audienceId', the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own description 'The audience ID'. Baseline is 3, and since no extra value is added, score remains 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'details for a specific custom audience', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like zernio_list_audiences (list all) and zernio_create_audience (create). It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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, such as when an audience ID is known versus needing to list audiences first. There are no prerequisities, exclusions, or when-not-to-use instructions.

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