reports_search_terms_in_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, default aggregation, sorting, pagination behavior, or limitations. The description is too high-level to inform the agent about the tool's actual 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?

Two sentences with no filler, very concise. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., mention parameters or output). Still, it earns high marks for efficiency.

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 has 11 parameters including a complex selector, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage. The description is too brief; it doesn't explain the output type or schema, nor how to interpret the report. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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 64% (moderate). The description adds no context about parameters; it doesn't mention required inputs (campaignId, dates) or explain optional fields like granularity or groupBy. It fails to compensate for schema gaps.

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 it is a search-terms report aggregated across all ad groups in a campaign, and explains the value ('reveals what users actually typed'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like reports_search_terms_in_adgroup (ad-group level).

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 use cases (harvest new keywords or negatives) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Siblings like per-adgroup search terms or keyword reports are not noted as alternatives.

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