Список ключевых фраз

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: Bid and ContextBid are returned in account currency. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, response shape, or default returned fields, so transparency is average.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main action and filters, and includes only the extra currency detail that matters. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

For a read-only list tool, the description plus full schema coverage is mostly sufficient: it states the resource, filters, and currency behavior, and the schema documents paging and field selection. It lacks an explicit statement of response shape or how filters combine, but nothing critical prevents an agent from invoking it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and all seven parameters have their own descriptions, so the schema already carries the main semantic weight. The description adds minimal param-related value by naming campaign, ad group, and id filters and clarifying currency for Bid/ContextBid, but it does not meaningfully expand parameter understanding.

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 and resource: 'Возвращает список ключевых фраз' (returns a list of key phrases), and it names the main filtering dimensions (campaign, ad group, id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_campaigns, list_ad_groups, and list_ads.

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 through its filter options, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparison with siblings such as list_ads or add_keywords are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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