gads_search_terms_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions a default date range of last 28 days, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The report nature implies read-only, but the description could be more explicit.

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 two sentences, very concise, and front-loaded with key information. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the tool, stating its utility, and noting the default time range.

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?

Given 6 parameters (with 33% description coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and a use case but leaves gaps. It does not describe the output format, pagination behavior, or how to handle large result sets (despite a limit parameter). The default date range is helpful, but overall completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 low (33%), so the description should compensate. It adds value by explaining the default date range (last 28 days), which maps to start_date and end_date defaults. However, it does not describe other parameters like customer_id, limit, campaign_id, or min_impressions beyond what the schema provides.

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 returns 'search terms that triggered ads (the actual user queries, not your keywords)', with a specific verb ('Search terms that triggered') and resource ('ads'). It distinguishes from keywords, differentiating it from sibling tools like gads_keyword_performance.

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 description says it is 'essential for finding wasted spend and negative keyword candidates', providing clear use cases. It implicitly contrasts with keyword-focused tools, though it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or list alternatives.

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