google ads get keyword performance

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

Annotations already cover the behavioral safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the source resource and output fields, but these are partly redundant with the output schema and do not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or timezone handling.

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 with no filler. The core action and scoping are front-loaded, and each word contributes meaning.

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 description clearly states purpose, while the schema and annotations handle parameters and behavioral safety. The presence of an output schema removes the need to list return fields in detail. Missing only minor context like pagination behavior, but the schema's limit description partially covers this.

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%, with detailed parameter explanations for customerId, dates, and limit (including bounds and default). The description adds no parameter-specific nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('keyword_view'), and the key fields returned (quality score, impressions, clicks, cost). It is more specific than the tool name alone, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like google_ads_get_search_terms.

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 purpose statement implies usage when keyword-level performance metrics are needed, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar ones, nor any exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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