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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return contents (average monthly searches, competition, top-of-page bid range in account currency) and the account-id formatting requirement. It does not mention pagination behavior or potential rate limits, but for a read-style research tool the disclosure is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core function appears in the first sentence, followed by return value, usage guidance, account-id clarification, and platform exclusion. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler or 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key inputs (keywords/URL, geo, language, ad_account_id) and output fields. It misses explicit pagination guidance and any mention of page_size limits, though these are encoded in the schema. The workflow pointer to the campaign-creation tool helps complete the context.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains why geo_target_ids and language_id matter (volume consistency), clarifies ad_account_id format, and connects output to adsap_google_create_search_campaign.ad_group.keywords. It also reinforces the keywords/URL combination without repeating exact schema rules.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a precise resource ('keyword suggestions with search volume from Google Keyword Planner') and ties it to a Google Search campaign context. It clearly distinguishes itself from Meta's world with the explicit 'Google-only — Meta has no keyword-planner analog.'

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 explains how to use the tool: seed with keywords and/or a URL, pass geo_target_ids and language_id for target-matching volumes, and feed outputs into adsap_google_create_search_campaign. It also gives an exclusion ('Google-only — Meta has no keyword-planner analog'), though it doesn't explicitly name a competing sibling or state 'use this instead of X.'

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