get_audience_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the state machine (processing → succeeded/failed) and advises polling with backoff. However, it does not describe the return payload shape, error conditions, or behavior for expired/missing operation IDs, leaving notable gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing useful information: what it retrieves, how to poll, what states to expect, and how to obtain the key input. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core workflow well, but important context is missing: there is no output schema to clarify the return format, no discussion of failure handling beyond a 'failed' state, and no clarification of how this tool relates to the sibling 'poll_audience_operation'. These gaps make it adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, with operation_id and custom_audience_id already described in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema for these parameters; 'Save operation_id from mutation response' essentially restates the schema's operation_id description. The optional ad_account_id remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the lifecycle state of a custom audience mutation, naming the relevant mutation types (add/remove/replace/merge). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'poll_audience_operation', which appears to serve a very similar role, so it falls short of fully distinguishing from siblings.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: use it after an audience mutation, save the operation_id from the mutation response, and poll with backoff until a terminal state is reached. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention the alternative 'poll_audience_operation', but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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