bing get audiences

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful semantic warning that an empty audience does not imply it can be matched or targeted, which is context the annotations cannot convey. It still omits anything about pagination or limits on the returned set.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with the caveat second. No restated title, no filler, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema carries all parameter detail. The description covers purpose plus the one non-obvious gotcha about empty audiences, leaving only minor gaps such as result volume or ordering.

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%, so accountId, the type enum, and audienceIds (including the omit-to-read-all behavior) are already fully documented. The description only reinforces the single-type scoping and adds no new parameter detail, which is the baseline case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read audience configuration for one audience type.' The 'one audience type' constraint is meaningful and distinguishes it from a multi-resource read. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling covers audiences at all, so the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 'Read audience configuration for one audience type,' and the closing caveat hints that reads may be followed by matching/targeting decisions. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tool is named because none exists.

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