Suggest keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only a restatement of output categories and says nothing about rate limits, result ordering, or how the open-world external lookup behaves.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is close to the right size for a two-parameter read tool, though the colon-list at the end is doing little work given an output schema exists.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, and the annotations cover behavior, so the baseline is met. However, the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the absence of any usage context leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding between this and other keyword tools.

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 must compensate, yet it only implicitly explains 'term' as a 'seed term' and never mentions 'limit' (default 10) at all. The agent gets no guidance on what limit bounds or what format the term should take.

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 resource and purpose: it generates keyword ideas from a seed term, split into 'popular suggested terms' and 'related terms'. That clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like pinterest_ads_create_keywords, though it never names or contrasts with pinterest_ads_list_keywords or pinterest_ads_get_targeting_options.

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 at all: nothing says whether this is for building new keyword lists, expanding existing ones, or how it relates to list_keywords/create_keywords. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the word 'ideas'.

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