get_search_term_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'get' implying a read-only operation, which is a typical safe operation, but it doesn't disclose whether the report is aggregated, what data is included, any limits or side effects. Reads are generally safe, but the description adds no context beyond the verb.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main verb and resource. However, it's so terse that it might be under-specification, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

This is a reporting tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is one sentence, providing no information about response format, required permissions, or how the report is structured. Given the complexity, the description is inadequate for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions, but the description itself mentions no parameters. It doesn't clarify the dateRange defaults, how campaignIds filtering works, or how minImpressions affects the report. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides, and the undocumented parameters remain unclear.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'search query performance report', clearly indicating a reporting tool for search query data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or get_keywords, as 'search query' is a distinct concept. However, it doesn't elaborate on the report's contents, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or appropriate contexts. This leaves the agent without direction.

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