amazon ads get sb keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is that results are paginated and archived entities are included by default, which is helpful. It also mentions a "returned cursor" while the input schema exposes only startIndex/limit, leaving it unclear which field the agent should pass back.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the pagination caveat; nothing is padded. The only minor cost is the ambiguous "cursor" reference, which slightly muddies the otherwise crisp wording.

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?

With a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description only needs to supply purpose and the pagination caveat, which it does. The lone gap is the mismatch between the mentioned cursor and the schema's startIndex-based paging, which an agent may have to resolve by inspecting the output schema.

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 100%, and each parameter already documents defaults, bounds, and formats (including the region-qualified accountId form). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the generic mention of cursor/offset, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List one page of Sponsored Brands keywords") and scopes it with "including archived entities," which an agent could not infer from the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as amazon_ads_get_sb_negative_keywords or amazon_ads_get_keywords, so the differentiation is implicit in the name rather than stated.

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 description gives pagination guidance ("Follow the returned cursor or offset; one page is not the whole inventory"), which is genuinely useful for calling the tool correctly. However, it says nothing about when to choose this tool over sibling keyword/target endpoints or what prerequisites apply beyond the schema's accountId.

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