Find Quick-Win Keywords (read-only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context like the bid recommendation formula (current + 25%, capped at 2x) and clarifies it never changes bids. Does not fully detail return structure but sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, inverse, and pairing advice. No wasted words.

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?

With output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It mentions the ranked list and recommended_bid_micros. All parameters are defined in schema. Minor gap: no mention of privacy_mode or response_format, but those are in schema. Overall adequate.

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 88%, and the description does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema. The description mentions 'recommended_bid_micros' in output, but not parameter details. Baseline score as schema carries the load.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Identify keywords with LOW CPC + HIGH CTR + at-least-some conversions' and distinguishes it from sibling 'google_ads_find_waste' by calling it the inverse.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (identifying quick-wins to raise bids), when not to use (NEVER changes bids), and alternative tool ('pair with google_ads_set_keyword_bid_micros').

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