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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the report is returned in one call, already sorted, and grouped into specific spend/conversion categories, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not cover limits, pagination, or exact return fields.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It quickly conveys the resource, the one-call behavior, and the report categories.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful summary of return categories and sorting behavior. Annotations cover safety and schema covers parameters, but exact output fields and pagination behavior remain unspecified, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so all parameters, including customer_id, period, login_customer_id, and only_without_conversions, are already documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for any parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as search terms and specifies the report categories returned, including wasted spend, converting terms, and excluded terms. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as find_wasted_spend or run_gaql_query, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed output categories: an agent can infer this is for analyzing search-term performance, wasted spend, and converting terms. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_wasted_spend or run_gaql_query.

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