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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing returned metrics and stating results are ordered highest spend first, though it does not discuss pagination or limits beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by a concrete usage suggestion. 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 read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields and purpose, while the schema covers all parameters. It could be more complete by differentiating from the sibling get_search_terms and noting pagination behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and the schema documents all five parameters including defaults, date formats, and account/campaign sourcing. The description only echoes the date range, optional campaign scope, and spend ordering, adding little 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 states a specific resource—search queries that triggered ads—and enumerates the returned fields and scope (date range, optional campaign). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_search_terms or name Microsoft Advertising in the body.

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 gives clear actionable use cases: finding wasted spend (cost with no conversions) and new keyword ideas. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as msads_get_keyword_performance.

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