get_keyword_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no response shape, no ordering, no pagination behavior, no rate-limit or error characteristics. Since there is no output schema, this gap is significant.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a scannable parameter list. Every line adds value and there is no filler or repetition of schema information beyond the necessary semantic clarifications.

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?

Inputs are fully documented and the tool's purpose is clear, which makes it minimally viable for invoking. However, with no output schema and a nearly identical sibling named get_keyword_performance_report, the description should clarify what performance metrics are returned or how this tool differs, so an agent can confidently select and interpret the result.

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 compensates well by explaining all four parameters with meaningful context: customer_id, ad_group_id, date_range format including a custom pattern, and limit with its default. This fully bridges the schema gap.

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 first sentence clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('keyword performance metrics'), and the scope ('for an ad group'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_keyword_performance_report, which appears to serve a nearly identical purpose.

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 about when to choose this tool instead of get_keyword_performance_report, get_ad_group_performance, or other performance-report siblings. The only usage signal is the ad-group scoping, but that is too weak to route an agent reliably to this specific tool.

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