direct_list_keywords

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

The description adds 'READ-ONLY', which is useful given no annotations are provided, but the verb 'list' already implies a read operation. It does not disclose whether at least one filter is required, how filters combine, or what happens when no filters are provided.

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 two short fragments, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is highly concise while still conveying the primary scope.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the presence of 5 optional parameters, the description is too minimal to fully support correct invocation. It fails to clarify default behavior, filter conjunction semantics, or valid values for states, leaving important gaps for an agent.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description should compensate by explaining limit and states, but it only names three of the five parameters. It does not clarify valid states, the relationship between filters, or the meaning of omitting filters.

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 the tool lists keywords and specifies the three filtering contexts (campaign_ids, adgroup_ids, project). This differentiates it from sibling list tools like direct_list_campaigns and direct_list_adgroups.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related tools such as direct_get_keyword_bids or direct_get_negatives. It only mentions filtering contexts, but does not explain preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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