get_keyword_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states read-only, authentication requirement, results grouping by country/region, inclusion of grand totals, and default time range/granularity. Lacks details on rate limits or error behavior but is sufficient for typical use.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and provide necessary context without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description lists expected metrics, grouping, defaults, and authentication. It references sibling tools for obtaining required IDs. Could be improved by mentioning pagination or data limits, but overall complete for a reporting tool.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 explicitly states 'Fetch performance metrics for targeting keywords' and lists specific metrics (impressions, taps, TTR, etc.). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool get_search_terms_report by stating that tool shows actual user queries.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the alternative tool ('Use get_search_terms_report to see the actual user queries') and mentions prerequisites ('Requires ASA authentication; read-only'). Also indicates default parameters.

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