get_google_ads_search_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully defines wasted spend as terms with budget consumed but zero conversions and discloses the response-level fields (total_spend, wasted_spend, wasted_spend_pct), which partly compensates for the missing output schema. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result volume 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then readable guidance sentences. Efficient overall, though the min_spend and zero_conversions_only sentences largely duplicate schema text and could be trimmed.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers return aggregates and the key filtering flags, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing pieces are auth/client resolution details and pagination/limit behavior.

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, and the baseline is 3. The description restates zero_conversions_only and min_spend semantics that the schema already provides, adding no format or interaction detail beyond it.

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 search term performance data from Google Ads') and frames the distinctive purpose (identifying wasted spend), which separates it from get_google_ads_keywords and the campaign-performance siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of 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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance: zero_conversions_only=true to focus exclusively on wasted spend, min_spend to filter negligible terms, and list_clients to discover client IDs. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this vs get_google_ads_keywords' comparison, but the usage context is clear.

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