keyword_ideas_historical

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 almost nothing: with 16 parameters it says nothing about pagination via page_token, the limit default, customer_id/login_customer_id authentication context, or how the historical window affects results. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully enriches 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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy. The important qualifier — date range — is present but parenthetical and undeveloped.

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 16-parameter, open-world query tool with zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin; an output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but input semantics and sibling disambiguation are missing. Only the date-range concept is conveyed.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only alludes to the year-month range (five of the sixteen parameters) and leaves keywords, location_ids, language_id, network, aggregate_metric_types, keyword_annotation, include_average_cpc, include_adult_keywords, customer_id, login_customer_id, limit and page_token entirely unexplained. Ambiguous typed fields such as start_month/end_month (string or integer) get no format guidance.

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 gives a verb and resource ("Generate keyword ideas") plus a qualifier about historical metrics and a year-month range, so the general purpose is discernible. However, it never says what seeds the ideas, which matters because siblings keyword_ideas_from_keywords, keyword_ideas_from_url, keyword_ideas_from_site and keyword_historical_metrics all overlap in apparent function. An agent cannot confidently pick this over keyword_ideas_from_keywords on the description alone.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling alternatives despite a crowded keyword_ideas_* family. The phrase "(year-month range)" implies a historical-metrics scenario but does not state a condition that selects this tool over keyword_historical_metrics.

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