Get Audience

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only fetch but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown ID, required permissions, or what 'details' actually comprises — significant gaps with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be cut without losing the action and resource.

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?

For a one-parameter getter with a fully documented schema this is minimally sufficient, but with no output schema the agent has no idea which audience fields 'details' returns. A brief note on the returned shape or on not-found behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and the single required parameter is documented as 'The audience ID.' The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific retrieval verb with a named resource (audience), so the agent knows exactly what comes back in kind, if not in shape. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like list-audiences or get-contact beyond the resource name, but the get/list naming pattern makes the split largely inferable.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus list-audiences or the other get-* tools, and no prerequisites such as holding a valid audience ID. The agent must infer that an ID is required and that this is the single-record counterpart to the list tool.

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