get_audience_members

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

With no annotations, the description provides relevant behavioral context: it returns a list of members with pagination and details the data object structure (phone number and other fields). It does not cover rate limits or auth, but for a read operation, the disclosure is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences: the first delivers the core purpose and pagination, the second adds detail on return structure. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, pagination, and member data shape. Lacks details on edge cases (e.g., empty audience), but overall adequate.

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% with full descriptions for all three parameters (audience_id, page, page_size). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'members (contacts) in an audience', and mentions pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_audience_members, which implies filtering.

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 listing all members with pagination. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. search_audience_members, but the context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

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