List LINE Audiences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral detail: it explains status meanings (READY usable, IN_PROGRESS wait ~10 min, FAILED, EXPIRED need recreate) and how filtering/pagination works. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense but well-organized, starting with the tool's core purpose, then statuses, filters, and return format. Every sentence adds value with no filler. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 filtering, pagination, status meanings, and the response structure (shows JSON-like format). However, it does not explain the 'oa' parameter (which OA to use) or the 'response_format' parameter (though the response structure is shown). With no output schema, the description does a good job but could be more explicit about input parameters.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for status_filter (enum values clarified) and name_contains (case-insensitive), and explains pagination via limit/page. However, the 'oa' parameter is not explained in either schema or description, which is a gap. Overall, it adds useful context beyond the 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 lists audience groups on the OA, including those created via OA Manager UI. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that some audiences (chat-tag, friend-path, web-traffic) cannot be created via Messaging API, which differentiates this list-only tool from audience creation tools.

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 provides context on when to use this tool (listing audiences, including those from OA Manager) and explains filtering by status and name. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for creation or deletion, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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