direct_report_search_queries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'READ' (read-only) and warns that 'Offline report may poll ~1 min', which is a valuable behavioral trait. It also notes the report is 'Top by cost', disclosing default ordering 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 extremely concise, with every clause earning its place: the report name, the data type (real user queries), the metrics (cost/clicks/CTR/CPC + conversions), latency (~1 min), and ordering (top by cost). It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 no output schema and only 17% parameter schema coverage, the description provides a solid high-level summary of the report contents and behavior, but it omits parameter semantics and the return structure. An agent could invoke the tool based on this description but would need to guess details about filters and result format.

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 only 17% (6 parameters, only 'project' described), which is low (<50%). The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters such as limit, date ranges, min_clicks, or campaign_ids, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 begins with the imperative 'READ:' and explicitly names the resource as 'SEARCH_QUERY_PERFORMANCE_REPORT', making it clear this tool reads a search query performance report. It further distinguishes itself from sibling report tools by highlighting 'real user queries (not just Criterion keys)' and listing specific metrics (cost/clicks/CTR/CPC + conversions), which is highly specific.

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 usage by calling this a 'READ' operation for a specific report type, and the 'not just Criterion keys' hint suggests a difference from other report tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct_report or direct_report_breakdown, nor does it provide exclusions.

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