get_audience_clients

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'Read-only, safe to retry', confirming safety, and discloses 'Max 10 concurrent requests' and authentication method, which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is compact yet complete: one line for purpose, one line for usage guidance, authentication notes, then a clear Args section with each parameter detailed, and a Returns section. No redundant or vague sentences.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no enums, and output schema exists, the description covers all essential aspects: parameters, return format, usage context, and sibling tool reference. Minor gap: doesn't mention behavior when audience has no data, but that's not critical for selection and invocation.

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 fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with examples and constraints: list_id (10-char alphanumeric, source), count (range, default), offset (pagination), account (optional, naming convention, fallback). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 lists top email clients for an audience, with specific examples (Gmail, Apple Mail, Outlook). It distinguishes itself from get_audience_top_locations by explicitly mentioning that sibling tool is for geographic distribution.

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?

Provides explicit use case for email rendering decisions and directly references get_audience_top_locations as an alternative. Also includes authentication and concurrency limits. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' beyond the stated alternative, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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