keyword_ideas_from_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not mention the pagination behavior implied by page_token, the customer_id/login_customer_id authentication context, the network/language/location scoping that affects results, or any quota cost of an open-world Google Ads lookup.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. The one content word beyond the name, 'UrlSeed', is opaque rather than clarifying.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 12-parameter, credentialed, paginated Google Ads tool sitting among five sibling keyword-idea tools, the description provides no account of required inputs, account context, or how to choose among siblings, leaving it materially incomplete.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and supplies none of it. Terms like 'UrlSeed', 'network' (default GOOGLE_SEARCH_AND_PARTNERS), 'language_id' ('1000'), 'location_ids', 'keyword_annotation' and 'aggregate_metric_types' are completely undefined anywhere in the definition.

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 verb 'Generate keyword ideas' is specific, and 'using UrlSeed' hints that the URL is the seed rather than a keyword list or a whole site, which loosely separates it from keyword_ideas_from_keywords and keyword_ideas_from_site. However, 'UrlSeed' is unexplained jargon, and the description never states that the URL is a required input or what kind of URL (landing page, competitor page) is expected, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of choosing this over keyword_ideas_from_keyword_and_url when both a URL and keywords exist, no prerequisites such as a connected Google Ads account, and no exclusions. Any routing decision must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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