get_keyword_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does convey the tool's read-oriented nature via 'performance' and lists output components, but it doesn't mention pagination, sorting, date range behavior, or whether it is purely read-only. This adds some context but lacks important behavioral details.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concise list of output metrics. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse. It doesn't explain return structure, pagination behavior, required parameter rationale, or how granularity and sorting affect results. A more complete description is needed for reliable invocation.

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%. The description does not mention any of the 9 parameters or their meanings. While parameter names like site_id and from_date are self-explanatory, the description provides no additional guidance on how to use them, especially for less obvious ones like granularity or order.

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 retrieves performance metrics for keyword groups/tags, specifying bucket distribution (bucket0-bucket8), volume, traffic, and CTR. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_keyword_citations or get_mentions, which focus on different data types.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, or context about use cases. The description simply states what it does without any 'when to use' or 'prefer this over' indications.

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