list_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only listing operation and the output fields, but it does not discuss pagination, ordering, or the full scope when ad_group_id is omitted; the behavior beyond the schema is only lightly disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that uses verbs and nouns efficiently, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, the optional filter, and return fields, which is strong given no output schema or annotations. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as pagination and the full default scope.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies ad_group_id's role as an optional filter, but it does not explain customer_id beyond the schema's title, leaving that parameter under-explained.

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 opens with 'List keyword criteria', a specific verb + resource, and specifies the optional ad group filter and the exact fields returned (text, match type, status, criterion id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_ads or list_campaigns.

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?

It clearly states that the tool lists keyword criteria and can be filtered to one ad group, giving concrete invocation context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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