List audiences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the backing API is versioned v1alpha Admin (a stability caveat), the default response is a summary, and includeDefinitions switches to full filter clauses - useful disclosure about return depth and when detail is needed.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the default-vs-full return behavior follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant detail is not buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes what comes back (summary vs. full definitions) and notes the API surface. It omits pagination or result-size behavior, but for a read-only two-parameter lister whose annotations cover safety, that is a small omission.

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 only 50%: the property parameter is documented in the schema, but includeDefinitions has no description there. The description compensates by explaining that setting includeDefinitions yields full filter clauses rather than the default summary, adding meaning the schema does not supply.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("List a property's audiences") and scopes it to a single property, so an agent can instantly tell it apart from list_accounts, list_properties, or the report tools. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting scope, but the resource is unique among the sibling set.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name - you call it when you need a property's audience list - but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative tools. Since no sibling overlaps on audiences, the lack of routing guidance is a minor gap rather than a harmful one.

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