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

Discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: the cost model ($0.18 per row, up to 20 rows, header excluded), that 4xx/5xx responses are not billed, and the semicolon-delimited response format. These are critical operational facts that the read-only/idempotent annotations do not convey.

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 extremely efficient: three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose—core function, billing and limits, and response format. There is zero filler and information is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it returns, how much it costs, row limits, error billing, and output format. The only notable gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the organic-keywords sibling, which is a minor omission given the clear name and content.

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?

Both parameters (domain and database) are fully described in the schema with examples and meanings, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already carries that weight, meeting the baseline.

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 states the tool returns keywords a domain bids on in Google Ads, listing the specific data fields (position, volume, CPC, URL). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling get_semrush_domain_organic_keywords, which covers organic rather than paid 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 implies the tool is for paid Google Ads keywords, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling get_semrush_domain_organic_keywords exists, yet differentiation is left to inference from the name and the word 'paid' rather than direct guidance.

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