get_audience_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fields shown (match rate, size, operation status), which adds behavioral context about the response. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention required permissions, or describe any potential side effects or freshness. This is adequate but not rich.

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 states the purpose and key outputs with no redundant filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool returns (match rate, size, operation status) and identifies the resource as a custom audience. It could mention error conditions or permission details, but these are not essential for basic use, making it slightly above the minimum.

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% (audience_id is described as 'Custom audience ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so no deduction is needed.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get health status and delivery readiness') and resource ('custom audience'), and lists the key outputs (match rate, size, operation status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audience which would focus on general audience details, not health status.

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 implies usage for checking audience health and delivery readiness, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_audience or list_custom_audiences, nor does it state when not to use it. There is no direct guidance on scenario selection, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level.

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