google_ads_get_search_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key behavioral trait that the data source switches based on reportType, which is useful. However, it fails to explain how behavior differs between search_term_view and campaign_search_term_insight (e.g., field availability, data retention), and says nothing about return format or that searchTermContains only applies to one mode.

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 a clear verb and no filler; every word carries meaning. It loses one point only because it compresses the reportType distinction into a dependent clause when that distinction arguably merits its own explanatory sentence.

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 dual-mode tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell which reportType to use for a given request, how the two views differ in data availability or fields, what the response shape looks like, or how this differs from the paid-organic search-terms sibling. Those gaps make correct invocation a guessing game.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the input schema and the description adds little on top. The mention of reportType merely echoes the enum already present in the schema, and no syntax, formatting, or cross-parameter constraints are added beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch search term performance') and names the two report sources it reads from, which gives the agent a concrete sense of scope. It is somewhat distinguishable from the sibling google_ads_get_paid_organic_search_terms by virtue of naming the two reporting views, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 phrase 'depending on reportType' implies a decision point but never explains when to choose one report type over the other, nor when to prefer this tool over the closely related google_ads_get_paid_organic_search_terms or google_ads_get_keyword_performance. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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