get_keyword_performance

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, but it only states a read operation. It does not mention output format, pagination, data volume, or any side effects, though the schema hints at filtering options.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it sacrifices substantive detail for brevity.

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?

Despite good schema coverage and an output schema, the description is too brief for a tool with many similar siblings. It lacks context on use cases, metric specifics, or how it differs from other performance tools, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently select it.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, matching the baseline of 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Return keyword performance metrics' clearly states a specific action (return) and resource (keyword performance metrics), distinguishing it from sibling performance tools for campaigns, ads, geo, etc. However, it lacks explicit differentiation like which specific metrics are included.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_search_terms or get_campaign_performance. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, with no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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