list_audience_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation (list) and mentions the returned fields (size, type, status), but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no packages exist. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 relatively concise, with only a few sentences. The Args section is clean and front-loads the purpose. However, the Chinese line 'DMP 人群包列表 (DMP audience package list)' is redundant for English-speaking agents and slightly wastes space. Overall, it is concise enough.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains return values ('including audience size, type, and status'), but does not specify the full structure (e.g., whether pagination metadata is included, any error states). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not complete, as an agent might need to infer the response format.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the default values for page and page_size, and importantly adds a max constraint of 100 for page_size that is not present in the schema (schema only says integer). This helps the agent avoid invalid inputs. The advertiser_id is explained as 'The advertiser account ID.' This is valuable given 0% schema coverage (the schema properties have no description field).

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 tool's purpose: 'List DMP audience packages under an advertiser account, including audience size, type, and status.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('audience packages'), and mentions the fields included in the results, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other entities like ads or campaigns.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where another tool might be preferable (e.g., get_audience_report). Sibling tools are listed but no differentiation is provided.

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