audience_manage_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' in the text is redundant. The one piece of added behavior is that the 'catalog' operation resolves locally, which tells the agent a discovery call costs no network round-trip.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the dispatch model and followed by the discovery hint. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the telegraphic 'args = path ids, query{...}' phrasing is cryptic enough to cost readability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the 'catalog' operation covers operation-name discovery. However, for a dispatcher over a large surface, the description gives no sense of scope or which operations exist, leaving the agent dependent on an extra discovery call before it can act.

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 0% and 'operation' is an unconstrained string with no enum, so the description carries the burden. It does explain that args holds path ids plus a query{...} object and that operation='catalog' enumerates valid names, which is useful, but the actual operation-name vocabulary and arg shapes remain undiscoverable without a prior call.

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 identifies the domain (Audience management/report reads) and the mechanism (dispatch by operation name), but never states concretely what is read — no resource list, no example operation beyond 'catalog'. It distinguishes itself from audience_manage_prepare/apply/reconcile only implicitly through the word 'Read'.

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?

It hints at a discovery workflow by noting operation='catalog' lists all operations with docs, which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to use this tool versus audience_manage_prepare/apply/reconcile or the direct audience_list_* / audience_get_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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