keywordbids.get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only repeats 'чтение' and adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or consequences of omitted parameters.

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 first sentence is dense but informative, covering the core purpose and return data. The second sentence is mostly redundant with the title and annotations, though it adds a documentation link. Overall it is compact and front-loaded, with little wasted wording.

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 description captures the tool's core function and high-level return values, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it omits details like pagination/Page behavior, exact output shape for the requested fields, and any error or permission context, leaving a moderately complex 5-parameter tool only minimally complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their allowed values. The description adds high-level context about returned bid data but does not elaborate on SelectionCriteria, Page, or the field groups beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for fully described schemas.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Возвращает ставки для ключевых фраз и автотаргетингов' (returns bids for keywords and autotargetings), making the tool's function clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like direct_keywords_get by the 'keywordbids' resource and the concept of 'ставки', though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling.

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 when to use the tool: when keyword/autotargeting bids or auction data are needed, and it explicitly labels the method as 'get (чтение)'. However, it gives no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no comparison with alternatives such as direct_keywords_get or direct_bidmodifiers_get.

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