Get Personalize Audience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation and specifies what is retrieved, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the audience ID is not found, leaving a partial gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 with no filler. It states the action, the object, the scope, and the lookup key in one concise line. Every word contributes, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 simple one-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what will be retrieved and how to identify the target. The only minor gap is the absence of any statement about error responses or missing IDs, but given the low complexity and direct read-only nature of the operation, the description is adequately complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage: audienceId is already described as 'The unique identifier of the audience/segment.' The description reinforces this by saying 'by ID' but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a precise resource ('the definition and membership rules of a single audience/segment'), and the selection key ('by ID'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like audience_list, which would return multiple audiences, and audience_create, which creates rather than retrieves.

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?

The description makes the usage context implicit but clear: use this tool when you have an audienceId and need the detailed definition and membership rules for that single segment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'single audience/segment by ID' wording is sufficient to steer an agent away from list and create siblings.

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