get_search_terms_report

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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of return shape, pagination, timezone, data availability, or rate limits—so it contributes little beyond the annotations.

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 one clear sentence plus a compact Args block. Every line adds parameter information not present in the schema, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only reporting tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all invocation inputs and clarifies the date-range format. It does not describe the returned fields/metrics, which is a minor gap given no output schema, but the description is otherwise sufficient to select and call the tool.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: customer_id, optional filters, date_range accepted formats ('predefined or YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD'), and limit default. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 and resource, 'Get search terms that triggered your ads,' making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling reporting tools like get_keyword_performance_report, so it lacks the sibling-distinction element required for a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over sibling reporting tools such as get_keyword_performance_report or get_campaign_performance. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and first sentence; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references.

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