kadam_adv_get_audience_params

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses permission scoping (only the owner can read), the failure mode for shared audiences (not found), and null semantics for unset slots including the downstream effect on the {placeholder}. This is exactly the kind of auth/data-shape context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is, then eligibility, then return semantics. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, eligibility, access failure, and null-slot behavior, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned parameter slots, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the single id parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraint meaning by tying the accepted ID domain to pixel-or-S2S audiences and explaining that IDs outside that domain surface as not found rather than as an error.

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 names the exact resource returned — hardcoded parameter values that a pixel or S2S audience substitutes into its tracking code — which is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from the generic kadam_adv_get_audience sibling. It is phrased as a noun description rather than a verb-led statement of retrieval, but the scope and data type are 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?

It states a clear precondition (only pixel and S2S audiences have these values) and an exclusion (an audience shared with the account answers as not found), which tells the agent when this call is pointless. It does not name kadam_adv_get_audience or kadam_adv_set_audience_params as alternatives, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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