Ads.Report.Search Terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that this is a read-only report call, not that results may be large or paginated, not whether date_range is required or defaults. The only useful signal is the mention that AI Max traffic is included in the results, which does affect what an agent will see.

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 sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise — brevity here comes from omission, not compression. A single additional clause on scope or arguments would have cost little and added much.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with zero annotations and zero schema coverage the definition leaves the agent without permissions context, date-range semantics, or routing guidance. For a report tool in a crowded ads.report family, that is a substantial gap.

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, and it says nothing about either parameter. customer_id is self-evident by name, but date_range's accepted values and default (LAST_14_DAYS) are documented nowhere in prose, leaving the agent to guess at format.

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?

Names the resource (a search-terms report) and adds a scoping hint with "incl. AI Max source", but there is no verb indicating retrieval and no statement of what the report contains or over what entity. It gestures at a distinction from siblings like ads.report.ai_max without making the boundary explicit.

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: no prerequisites, no statement of when to prefer ads.report.campaign, ads.report.ai_max, or ads.gaql.query instead. The parenthetical about AI Max source is a data-scope note, not a selection rule.

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