gads_keyword_ideas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only retrieval operation and the kind of data returned, but does not mention authentication requirements, account prerequisites, rate limits, or what happens when no ideas are found. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, compact sentence conveys the core action, resource, source, and result contents with no fluff. It is front-loaded and every word 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?

The output schema existence reduces the need to document return shapes, but the tool still has five input parameters with no semantic coverage, no usage guidance, and no annotation context. An agent cannot fully understand language_id, location_id, or output format behavior from this definition, leaving it incomplete for non-default calls.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation for seed_keywords, limit, format, language_id, or location_id. Only their names and defaults appear in the schema, so an agent cannot reliably construct non-default requests with the right ID formats or expected values.

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 'Get' with a concrete resource ('keyword ideas') and names the source ('Google Ads') as well as the returned metrics (search volume, competition, bid estimates). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling keyword tools like semrush_keyword_overview or gsc_search_queries.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as semrush_keyword_overview or google_trends_explorer. It merely states what the tool does, without exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.

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