get_keyword_performance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it is a read operation, which is good, but notes it is an 'introspection stub', implying it may not perform the actual hosted endpoint call. This is a key behavioral trait that is disclosed, but it lacks other behavioral details (e.g., no side effects, but no output description).

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second provides an important caveat about the stub nature. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be clearer.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, behavior of filters, or how to use the tool effectively. The stub caveat adds uncertainty. More context is needed for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs 'keyword bid and targeting analysis', which is a specific read operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are write-oriented (e.g., create_keywords, archive_keywords). However, the note about being a stub may cause confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or when to avoid this tool. The description does not mention alternatives or context for choosing this over other read tools (e.g., get_campaign_performance).

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