search_audience_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result limit (up to 10) and the dual search modes, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements, or potential side effects. This is adequate but leaves 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the purpose, modes, and result limit. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential modes and limit. It could mention that the tool is safe/read-only or what fields are searchable, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the two search modes and giving examples (phone number, name), clarifying the parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions. It also reiterates the mutual exclusivity, which is already in schema.

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 tool's purpose: searching for members in an audience. It specifies two modes (general and field-specific) and a result limit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_audience_members, delete_audience_members, and add_audience_members.

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?

While the description implies when to use the tool (search members), it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The schema's mutual exclusivity of query and field_filters is noted but no guidance on when to choose one over the other.

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