get_keyword_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (keyword performance, quality scores) but offers no details on read-only nature, pagination, date range handling, filtering, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and to the point.

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 presence of an output schema and the fact that parameter semantics are covered by the schema, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's core function. However, it could benefit from mentioning optional filtering capabilities or the meaning of 'performance' metrics, which would improve completeness for users needing to select between sibling tools.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema provides descriptions for 4 of 6 parameters (67% coverage), including row_limit, campaign_id, customer_id, and account. The missing descriptions for start_date and end_date are self-explanatory given their names, so the schema largely carries the semantic weight.

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 'Get keyword-level performance including quality scores' clearly specifies the verb and resource, and explicitly identifies the granularity as keyword-level, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance and get_ad_performance.

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 implies usage for keyword-level performance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It's not misleading, but guidance is minimal.

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