Список ключевых слов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: a narrow default field set is returned unless the caller expands it via fields. It does not mention pagination or return shape, but with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and purpose front-loaded, followed by the field-selection caveat. No wasted words, though the parenthetical field examples are borderline redundant against the enum in the schema.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, it omits pagination/offset behavior and does not clarify how results relate to sibling listing tools, leaving modest gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the fields enumeration and the default field list are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces this by naming KeywordFieldEnum and example fields, but adds little the schema does not already provide. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: keywords ("ключевые фразы") in ad groups, with the returned data types (phrases, bids in rubles, statuses). It is clearly a read/list operation distinguishable from add_keywords/update_keywords, though it does not call out those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to add_keywords/update_keywords/manage_keywords purely from the verb in the name; the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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