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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as scope limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

The tool is low complexity, annotations cover its safety profile, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, the absence of any parameter explanation against 0% schema coverage leaves a real gap in invocation context.

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 should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. It hints only at ad_group_id by naming an ad group and says nothing about account_id or customer_id.

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: lists keywords in a Microsoft ad group. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from list_microsoft_negative_keywords or explains that it excludes negative keywords.

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?

The description only states what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. Sibling tools such as list_microsoft_negative_keywords and add_microsoft_keywords are not referenced.

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