List keywords

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds context about currency units for bids. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could be more transparent about pagination behavior (limit, offset, autoPaginate) or the overall response structure, given no output schema.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key detail about bid currency. No extraneous information.

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 tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering and a small output detail but ignores pagination, response format, and read-only nature (already in annotations). It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to understand full behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond what's already in the schema, only summarizing the three main filter parameters (campaign, ad group, id). It does not explain fieldNames or pagination parameters further.

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 states that the tool lists keywords with filtering by campaign, ad group, or ID, and specifies that Bid and ContextBid are returned in account currency units. This verb+resource structure effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_keywords, set_keyword_bids, and keyword_action that modify or manage keywords.

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 retrieving keyword data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is the read-only tool for viewing keywords, while add_keywords is for creating. No usage exclusions or conditions are given.

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