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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the '[read]' marker and the sort order (by clicks), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite 8 params and page/per_page being present.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded, then ordering, then filters. No filler and no 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?

With 8 optional parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It covers most filters and the date format but omits pagination controls, so an agent cannot fully reason about result paging from the definition alone.

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 0%, so the description does some real work: it groups filters into branch, account (by id or uuid), status, and gives the format for `since` (YYYY-MM-DD). However, it never explains page or per_page, and 'branch' must be inferred as the seliee_website id/uuid pair, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List mined search terms (Google Ads)') plus the default ordering by clicks, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from the closely named sibling review_ads_search_terms, which is the main gap.

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 enumerated filters, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative review_ads_search_terms tool, which reads as the natural companion for acting on these terms.

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