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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing operational: no note that results are scoped per channel (an important caveat present only in the schema), no pagination defaults or page-size token tradeoff, and no sense of what a row contains.

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 wasted clauses. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 ten optional parameters, no output schema, and a channel-scoped dataset, the description does only minimum-viable work. The rich schema and safety annotations compensate, but the agent still must open the schema to learn the per-channel isolation and default sort behavior.

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%, with detailed docs for page, size, sort, channel, and the filter fields, so the baseline is 3. The description's generic mention of 'filtering, sorting, and pagination' maps to that schema but contributes no additional semantics.

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 verb (Review) and a resource (search terms report) plus capability areas (filtering, sorting, pagination). However, it frames the tool as 'Google Ads' while the schema's channel enum supports MICROSOFT_ADS, and it offers no differentiation from adjacent read tools such as list_keywords or performance_metrics.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. 'Review the search terms report' implies the context but an agent gets no signal about when to pick this over list_keywords, performance_metrics, or experiments_keywords_stats.

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