List audience members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the required auth scope (audiences:read) and the result ordering ('newest scraped first'). It stops short of describing page-size behavior at the boundary or what a member record contains.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then auth scope, endpoint, ordering and search semantics. The GET path line is somewhat redundant alongside the path parameter but usefully anchors the operation; no filler sentences.

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 six-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, ordering and one filter's semantics. It omits the meaning of the follower-range filters and what the returned member objects look like, which an agent would need to filter correctly.

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 only 17%, so most parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description rescues `search` by explaining it matches username, full name or bio case-insensitively, and reinforces pagination ordering, but leaves maxFollowers, minFollowers, page and limit entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List audience members') and pins the exact endpoint GET /audiences/{id}/members, so an agent knows it enumerates members of one audience. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as import_audience_members or export_audience, but the read-vs-write distinction is implicit in 'List'.

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?

Usage is implied: call it with an audience `id` to enumerate that audience's members. The required API key scope 'audiences:read' is a useful precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for related needs like importing or exporting members.

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