get_audience

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. The description only says 'Get details' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though the verb implies it), what specific details are returned, or error behavior (e.g., if the audience is not found). It also does not mention any permission requirements or side effects. This is minimal disclosure, adding little beyond what the tool's name already conveys.

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, concise sentence: 'Get details of a specific audience in a user database.' It front-loads the purpose, uses no unnecessary words, and fully conveys the action and scope without repetition or filler. This is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

For a simple get tool, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks some context that would be helpful given there is no output schema and no annotations. It does not mention what the response includes (beyond 'details'), any prerequisites (e.g., that the user_db must exist), or how this tool relates to list_audiences for finding IDs. However, the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, so it is minimally complete but not rich.

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 fully describes both parameters: 'id' as Audience ID and 'user_db_id' as User database ID, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It reinforces that the audience is within a user database, but does not explain relationships or constraints (e.g., that audience IDs are unique only within a user_db), so it stays at the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 'Get details of a specific audience in a user database' uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('audience') and its context ('user database'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_audiences (which retrieves multiple) and create/update/delete by focusing on a single, specific audience. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from list_audiences, but the word 'specific' makes it clear enough.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need details of one audience in a user database. It does not, however, provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_audiences for browsing. Since the context is straightforward and the name is self-explanatory, the usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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