google_ads_generate_keyword_ideas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it states 'Read-only; no plan is saved,' lists returned data categories, and mentions pagination. It does not cover API authorization or usage limits, but the core safety and output behavior are transparent.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and input options, then efficiently lists outputs and the key read-only guarantee.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important call-shaping facts: valid seed inputs, returned fields, pagination, and safety. It could go further on parameter interplay such as site exclusivity or which options require specific input modes, but the schema already documents several of those constraints, so the overall picture is sufficient.

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 low at 38%, so the description partly compensates by explaining the main seed modes: up to 20 seed keywords, URL, keywords plus URL, or whole site. It adds meaning around seed-source combinations and pagination, but it does not clarify many other parameters such as network, geoTargetIds, languageId, include toggles, or customerId semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource (Discover Keyword Planner ideas) and enumerates the exact accepted input modes: up to 20 seed keywords, a URL, keywords plus URL, or a whole site. It also summarizes the returned data, making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like generate_keyword_historical_metrics or forecast_metrics.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs keyword ideation from seeds or a domain, and it adds a helpful read-only/no-plan-saved signal. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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