google ads generate ad group themes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'without creating or editing keywords' and 'Read-only'. It also adds behavioral context about the return values (pairings, normalized text, match type) beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict 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?

Three sentences with the primary action front-loaded: 'Organize supplied keywords into existing Google Ads ad groups.' Each sentence adds value: purpose, output details, and read-only status. There is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The tool is well-covered by schema (100% param docs), annotations (read-only, idempotent), and an output schema. The description explains the operation and output without duplicating schema details. It lacks explicit error or prerequisite information, but given the existing structured context, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'supplied keywords' but adds no additional semantic detail about customerId or adGroupIds beyond what the schema already specifies. It does not compensate further, but it does not need to.

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 states a specific action ('Organize supplied keywords') and a specific resource ('existing Google Ads ad groups'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on organization rather than generation. It also clearly specifies the output (suggested pairings, normalized text, match type) and notes it is read-only, differentiating it from mutation tools.

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 clearly implies the use case (organizing existing keywords into existing ad groups) and notes it is a read-only Keyword Planner RPC, which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like generate_keyword_ideas or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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