google_ads_get_paid_organic_search_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and exposes an important implementation behavior: it prefers paid_organic_search_term_view and falls back to paid-only search_term_view when organic fields are unavailable. This adds useful information beyond the name and schema, though it does not describe pagination, output shape, or error behavior.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and read-only nature before explaining the fallback behavior. Every clause adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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 an 8-parameter read-only report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core purpose and fallback behavior but omits return-value expectations and practical usage constraints. The high schema coverage helps, but the lack of output schema means the description could usefully state what fields or rows are returned.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage. No credit is needed beyond the baseline.

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 identifies a specific verb ('get'), resource ('paid/organic search terms report'), and clarifies it is read-only. It reasonably distinguishes itself from a plain search-terms tool by mentioning both paid and organic, though it does not explicitly name the sibling 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 description implies the tool is for retrieving paid/organic search terms and notes the fallback view behavior, which gives some context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus the sibling google_ads_get_search_terms or any other alternative, leaving the decision primarily to the agent.

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