List audience groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it notes pagination via `has_more` and explains the relationship of returned IDs to other tools (send_notification/send_ab_notification). This is useful supplementary 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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose, pagination detail, and a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place with no 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?

The description is complete for a read-only list tool: it covers purpose, pagination, and the practical downstream use case of retrieving IDs. With a full input schema, output schema, and strong annotations, there are no significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters already have detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists audience groups on the current site') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like pushengage_create_audience_group and pushengage_list_segments. Mentioning pagination adds scope clarity.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this to look up audience-group IDs when the user references a group by name'. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of a full exclusionary guideline.

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