Get Custom Audience

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds the 'specific audience' scope but no additional behavioral context such as response shape or conditions. It is consistent with annotations and does not contradict them.

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 short, front-loaded, and immediately readable. The Args block duplicates schema information but is minimal enough to not be harmful. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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 straightforward read-only get operation, the name, schema, and annotations together are nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description only says 'details,' so the agent is not told what fields or response format to expect beyond the response_format parameter. A sentence describing the returned data would make this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both audience_id and response_format. The description merely repeats audience_id without adding new meaning, and it does not mention response_format. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clear action ('Gets details') and a precise resource ('a specific custom audience'), and the qualifier 'specific' distinguishes it from listing or creating custom audiences. This is enough for an agent to identify this as a single-record retrieval operation, distinct from siblings like meta_list_custom_audiences.

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 the use case: call this when you already have an audience_id and need details for one custom audience. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as meta_list_custom_audiences for enumeration, so the guidance is only implied.

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