Get Search Terms Report

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond the annotation — 'ordered by cost' — which tells the agent how results are ranked. Beyond that it is thin: no mention of row limits, pagination, or truncation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is and what it is for, with no filler. Nothing is padded, though the brevity leaves room for more concrete routing information.

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, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a read-only report with fully documented params, the description covers what an agent needs; only limit/pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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 100%, and each parameter (limit, date_range, start/end date, campaign_id, customer_id) is documented inline in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clarifies its semantics: 'the actual user queries that triggered ads, with the core metrics.' This implicitly distinguishes it from keyword-based siblings, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than made 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?

'The main input for finding negative keyword candidates and new keyword opportunities' gives a clear usage context, which is more than most report tools offer. However, it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., versus get_keyword_performance), so routing between sibling report tools is still implied rather than guided.

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