get_google_ads_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the account-level QS distribution summary, the 1-4 flagging rule, and the CPC consequence. It omits permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then progressively more operational detail; little waste. The min_impressions advice mildly duplicates the schema text, which is the only 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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output shape, and the key filter heuristic, and points at list_clients for the client_id prerequisite. It does not explain pagination/limit interaction or return ordering beyond what the schema states, leaving a small 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including defaults and the min_impressions=100 recommendation. The description largely restates that same min_impressions guidance rather than adding format or interaction semantics, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Retrieves keyword performance and Quality Score data from Google Ads') and names the concrete artifact returned (quality_score_distribution). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_google_ads_search_terms or get_google_ads_campaign_performance without opening any schema.

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?

Gives actionable usage context: 'Use min_impressions=100 to focus on keywords with enough data for reliable QS' and routes the agent to list_clients for client IDs. It stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this over the sibling search-terms or campaign-performance tools, so it lacks true alternatives/exclusions guidance.

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