ads_search_term_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only report, but does not mention pagination via limit, filtering by campaign/ad group, date range handling, report latency, data aggregation, or output shape. This is too thin for a report tool.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and a nested object; the brevity reads more as omission than as disciplined conciseness.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, plus low parameter coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It lacks guidance on required inputs, filters, pagination, and what the returned report contains beyond 'actual user queries.'

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 only 17%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain customerId, dateRange, campaignId, adGroupId, or limit. With such low coverage, the description was expected to compensate but instead merely restates the report's content.

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 ('Gets') and a concrete resource ('search terms report'), and adds clarifying context ('showing actual user queries') that distinguishes it from keyword-related tools like ads_list_keywords. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as ads_list_keywords or ads_get_keyword_ideas. The phrase 'actual user queries' hints at one use case, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided.

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