meta_get_audience_details

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

The description clearly signals a read-only operation and notes that results depend on permissions, which adds useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits details about pagination behavior, error conditions, or what 'rich fields' are actually returned, leaving only a partial transparency picture.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, target audiences, and key features, though phrases like 'rich fields' and 'where permissions allow' are somewhat vague.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what 'detailed' or 'rich fields' means, when to pass audienceIds versus adAccountId, or how this relates to meta_get_audiences. An agent would still need to infer important invocation details.

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?

The schema already describes cursor, adAccountId, and audienceIds (60% coverage), and the description adds useful context by mapping the type enum to audience categories and linking pagination to limit/cursor. It does not, however, clarify the relationship between adAccountId and audienceIds or add semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('detailed custom, saved, and lookalike audiences'), making the main purpose clear. It also mentions pagination and rich fields, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling meta_get_audiences other than by the word 'detailed'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_get_audiences, nor any exclusions or conditions. The phrase 'where permissions allow' hints at permission constraints but does not explain when this tool is preferable or how to choose between its own listing vs. batch-ID modes.

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