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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the truncated response shape ({result, warning}) and what triggers it, that removed groups'/campaigns' keywords are hidden, that ad_group_status/campaign_status reveal paused parents (so the keyword is not serving), and that ad-group negatives appear with negative=true. This is exactly the sort of behavior an agent cannot infer from schema or 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and filter, followed by edge-case behavior in priority order (limit, truncation, negatives, hidden entities, workspace); nearly every clause carries information. It is dense and somewhat run-on, and the German prose sits against English tool naming, which adds minor parsing overhead.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't restate return fields, yet it still explains the exceptional truncated shape, which the schema likely doesn't capture. For a zero-required-parameter list tool this is close to complete; only pagination/ID-format details are absent.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and covers all four parameters: limit (default 200, max 1000, with truncation semantics), campaign_id/ad_group_id as filters, and workspace as the customer slug that is optional when only one workspace exists. It only lacks ID format conventions (e.g., raw numeric vs. resource path).

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?

"Keywords auflisten" gives a clear verb+resource, and the mention that ad-group negatives are included (flagged negative=true) implicitly delineates it from ads_list_negative_keywords. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Useful operational guidance is given for the truncation case (narrow by campaign_id/ad_group_id or raise limit), which tells the agent how to recover. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over ads_list_negative_keywords or ads_keyword_performance, or which filter to use first.

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