list_keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ad-group scoping and the optional status/limit behavior, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or error behavior. This is acceptable given the annotations 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?

One crisp purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every line adds value, and the most important scoping phrase is front-loaded.

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?

All required inputs and the optional parameters are covered, and the read-only/open-world behavior is already in annotations. The only gap is the lack of an output schema or return-value description, so an agent cannot predict the exact shape of the keyword list.

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%, yet the description explains all four parameters in natural language. It provides the exact allowed values for status_filter and clarifies limit's default and meaning, which is essential because the schema has no enum or per-parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List keywords in an ad group.' This clearly scopes the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ad_groups and list_ads, which target different resources.

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 first sentence implies the intended use case: retrieve keywords that belong to a specific ad group. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as add_keywords, remove_keyword, or get_keyword_performance, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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