bing get keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the ownership qualifier ('owned ad group'), which hints at an access constraint, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what happens when the ad group has no keywords.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource scope is stated before the target. It is slightly under-sized given it is the only prose an agent gets beyond structured fields, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return-shape explanation is not required, and the four required parameters are documented. However, for a tool nested three levels deep (account → campaign → ad group) the description never states whether the campaignType must match the campaign's native type or how results are bounded, leaving gaps an agent must discover by calling it.

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%, so all four parameters (accountId, adGroupId, campaignId, campaignType) are already explained in detail by the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning; the terms 'match types, bids and status' describe output fields rather than inputs. 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?

The description names a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (keywords, match types, bids, status) scoped to an ad group, which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling listing tools such as bing_get_ads or bing_get_ad_groups, so a reader must infer the boundary from the resource name 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for inspecting keywords inside an existing ad group. There is no statement of when to prefer it over a reporting tool like bing_get_report, nor any exclusion or precondition beyond the phrase 'owned ad group'.

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