Ads keyword ideas

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are Keyword Planner metric estimates (searches, competition, bid range), which is useful context, but says nothing about quota cost, whether Keyword Planner requires an active Ads account, or how many seeds are allowed.

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 dense sentence with the resource and the payoff metrics front-loaded; there is no filler wording. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasteful.

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 presence of an output schema means return shape need not be re-explained, and the description names the three metric categories returned. However, for a tool requiring customer_id and with geo/language targeting and a limit, the definition leaves out critical call-setup information an agent would need.

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% across six parameters. The description only hints at two of them (keywords, url); the required customer_id, the language_id '1000' default, geo_target_ids format, and the limit default of 50 are entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Only minimal meaning is added beyond the parameter names.

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+resource ('Keyword Planner ideas') plus the input modes ('seed keywords and/or a URL') and the returned metrics, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like trends.related_queries or ads.reach.forecast, which keeps it off a 5.

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 phrase 'from seed keywords and/or a URL' implies the two input modes but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as trends.related_queries, ads.reach.forecast, or ads.report.search_terms. No prerequisites, exclusions, or ordering guidance are given.

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