get_audience_clients

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true; description adds output format (JSON with total_items, clients array), pagination via offset, and parameter constraints (list_id format). No side effects mentioned but not needed given read-only nature.

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?

Well-structured: summary, usage guidance, then Args and Returns sections. Clear without unnecessary words. Could be slightly more concise in return description but overall efficient.

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 list tool, the description provides purpose, usage, parameter details, and return structure. Missing the account parameter is a gap, but the output schema exists (not shown) to supplement. Overall adequate.

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 0%, so description must explain all parameters. It covers list_id, count, offset with format, defaults, and usage, but misses the 'account' parameter entirely. This is a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: 'List the top email clients...' with examples (Gmail, Apple Mail, Outlook). It distinguishes from sibling get_audience_top_locations, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (informing email rendering/design decisions) and when not to (use get_audience_top_locations for geographic distribution). Also guides on obtaining list_id from list_audiences.

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