get_audience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It fully discloses the output shape for each detail level, notes that 'persona' may be null, and warns about the prerequisite that audience data may not exist. It could mention explicit read-only behavior, but 'Fetch' implies it, and the level detail is substantial.

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 compact, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently explains levels, the persona field, and a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must fully explain return values. It does this thoroughly for all three detail levels, clarifies the nullable persona, and gives an actionable precondition. For a simple get tool with two documented parameters, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by enumerating exactly what each detail level includes (e.g., 'short = compact summary (name + primaryRoles + top painPoints + persona.role)'), which enriches the enum meaning far beyond the schema's generic description.

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+resource: 'Fetch the brand's audience intelligence / ICP'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like edit_audience and preview_audience_edit by being the retrieval tool, and it names the exact data being fetched.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when audience intelligence/ICP is needed) and provides an explicit alternative for when data is missing ('If the brand has no audience data yet, run website/audience analysis (onboarding) first'). It also explains the detail level options, helping the agent choose the right verbosity.

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