google_ads_keyword_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes the output (projected metrics) and parameter details, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or mention any authentication or rate limits. The forecast nature implies safety, but explicit confirmation is missing.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, bullet-point Args, Returns, Example, and dedicated sections for Match Types and Date Intervals. It is somewhat verbose but all content is valuable. The purpose is front-loaded.

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 complexity (7 parameters, defaults, output schema exists), the description covers all aspects: parameter details, return value, example usage, and enumeration of valid values for match types and date intervals. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity for execution.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with format, defaults, and examples. Match types and date intervals are described in separate sections. This provides rich beyond-schema semantics.

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 starts with 'Forecast traffic metrics for specific keywords,' which clearly states the action (forecast) and the resource (traffic metrics for keywords). It further details what metrics are projected (impressions, clicks, costs) and provides a concrete example. This is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like google_ads_keyword_ideas or google_ads_performance_forecaster, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 includes Args, Returns, Example, and separate sections for Match Types and Date Intervals. It provides clear guidance on how to use the tool and what parameters to provide. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as google_ads_keyword_ideas or google_ads_estimate_keyword_traffic.

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