Get Search Terms Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and 'actual searches that triggered your ads,' which implies a read operation but never states that it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any limitations or rate-limit behavior. Therefore, the safety profile remains underspecified.

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 short sentences with no filler; the first states the action and object, and the second adds purpose. Every phrase earns its place.

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 a fully described input schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. The only notable gap is behavioral transparency, already scored separately; no additional invocation context appears missing.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to re-explain them. It adds no parameter-level detail of its own, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the imperative 'Get the search terms report' and clarifies the resource with 'actual searches that triggered your ads,' which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling performance and keyword-planner tools. This is not a tautology and names a concrete report type.

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 second sentence states two concrete use cases: 'finding new keyword opportunities and negative keyword candidates.' This gives clear context for when the report is valuable, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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