get_saved_audiences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (dictionary), pagination behavior (after/before cursors), and the default field list. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the act_id format and field availability.

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 an Args section and a Returns line, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, and the parameter documentation is organized and efficient without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return structure details are not required. The description covers all input parameters, defaults, pagination, and field options. For a list tool with moderate complexity, nothing essential is missing; the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains every parameter: act_id format, fields with available options and defaults, limit, and pagination cursors. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear and actionable.

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 saved audiences for an ad account, naming the resource (audiences) and the action (list). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_custom_audiences, even without explicitly naming alternatives. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or context like 'for custom audiences use X'. The agent must infer from the name and description alone, which is not explicit enough for a multi-tool environment.

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