get_audience_growth_history

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

Despite no annotations, description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only operation, safe to retry, authentication method, concurrency limit, and data ordering (newest first). This covers all behavioral aspects needed for safe invocation.

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 well-structured: starts with purpose, then data details, usage hint, auth/limits, argument definitions, and return format. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be trimmed slightly but remains clear.

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 tool simplicity (2 params, known output), description is complete. Explains return structure (keys: month, subscribed, etc.) and data types. With existing output schema, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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?

Input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but description compensates fully: explains list_id format and source (10-char alphanumeric, from list_audiences), and count range (1-1000, default 12). Adds meaning beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves monthly growth history (subscribes, unsubscribes, cleaned) for an audience. It specifically contrasts with sibling get_audience_details, which provides current totals, thus distinguishing the tool from alternatives.

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 advises when not to use this tool ('Use get_audience_details for current totals instead of historical trends'). Also provides authentication (API key), concurrency limits (max 10), and retry safety, giving clear guidance for invocation.

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