get_suggested_bids_for_new

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description does not need to re-state that. It adds useful scoping context: the tool produces suggestions before an ad group exists and works on books, keywords, and product targets. It does not go further into operational behavior such as limits, dependencies, or how suggestions are calculated, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 dense sentence with the key pre-ad-group context front-loaded and no filler. The word 'price' is slightly awkward as a verb, but it does not undermine the overall clarity or add unnecessary length.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the description covers the core use case and the most important parameters. However, it leaves a few gaps for a 5-parameter tool: the semantics of market and theme are not explained, and there is no guidance about what happens when both optional keywords and target_asins are absent. These are minor but real gaps.

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 0%, so the description has the burden of explaining parameters. It does add real meaning: asins are 'book(s)', target_asins are 'product targets', and keywords are given an inline object shape with EXACT/PHRASE/BROAD match values. It does not explain market or theme, but theme has a default and market is reasonably inferable as the marketplace, so the compensation is strong but not complete.

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 identifies the resource ('Suggested bids') and the distinctive pre-ad-group context, and the phrase 'before an ad group exists' separates it from the sibling get_suggested_bids. It also names the relevant inputs: asins, keywords, and target_asins. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'calculates', relying on the noun phrase and the tool name to convey the action.

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 opening phrase 'before an ad group exists' gives a clear trigger condition for when to use this tool, and it naturally implies that the sibling get_suggested_bids is for the existing-ad-group case. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the timing guidance is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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