get_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description alone should convey behavioral traits. It only states the action and target, but does not disclose what is returned, whether negative keywords are included, or any read-only safety context. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but additional detail would be needed for full transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and all content is relevant. It could be slightly more informative, but it avoids bloat.

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 the tool's low complexity and complete schema, the description provides adequate context to understand the basic purpose. However, with no output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps about the return format and the exact nature of 'keywords' (e.g., includes negative keywords?). It is minimally viable but not thorough.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's 'customer or ad group' mirrors the schema parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It does not explain how adGroupId filters results or any format details.

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 retrieves keywords, with the scope being a customer or ad group. This distinguishes it from write operations like add_keywords and from keyword idea generation (get_keyword_ideas), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_keyword_ideas or add_keywords. It implies use when needing existing keywords, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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