get_audience_top_locations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds additional context: 'Authenticated via API key. Max 10 concurrent requests. Read-only, safe to retry.' This aligns with and supplements the annotations, providing clear behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, authentication, parameters, and returns. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, pagination, optional account), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter details, output structure, and error handling (via mentions of concurrency and authentication). Output schema exists but the description still explains return fields, adding clarity.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: list_id with example and source, count with range and default, offset for pagination, and account with naming convention and reference to list_accounts. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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's purpose: 'List the top geographic locations (countries) of an audience's members.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('geographic locations'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_campaign_locations' by specifying its use for audience-based analysis versus campaign opens.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use to understand where an audience is based for regional targeting or reporting') and contrasts it with an alternative ('Use get_campaign_locations for the geographic breakdown of a single campaign's opens instead'). It also includes authentication and concurrency limits.

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