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 the description's 'Read only; no spend' is largely redundant. It does not explain pagination, date-range defaults, what the report contains, or why a read-only tool has a 'confirm' parameter tied to spending approval.

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 short and front-loads the resource name, with no wasted sentences. The trailing 'Fields: soclo://...' line is cryptic but does not bloat the text.

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 six-parameter report tool with a nested filter object and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It does not clarify required account identifiers, date-range behavior, pagination, or the purpose of requestId/confirm, leaving the agent to rely entirely on schema field names.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and a nested 'parameters' object containing fromDate, toDate, campaignId, adGroupId, adSetId, and pageToken, the description must compensate but does not. The 'Fields: soclo://...' pointer is not meaningful parameter guidance and explains none of the six inputs.

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 restates the title ('Google Ads search terms report') without adding an explicit verb or scope, so the agent must infer that it retrieves the report. It is specific enough to identify the resource but offers no differentiation from nearby analytics tools like query_ad_insights or get_ad_analytics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'Read only; no spend' reassures on safety but does not help the agent choose this tool.

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