google_ads_keyword_ideas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It describes the data returned (metrics) and competition levels, but does not disclose potential API limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. The description adds context but could be more comprehensive.

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 sections for intro, args, returns, example, and common IDs. It is informative without being overly verbose. Minor improvement could be trimming redundant information, but it is well-organized.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately summarizes returns. It covers parameters, examples, and common values. It could mention the response_format more explicitly, but overall it is complete for a keyword research tool.

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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by detailing each parameter in the 'Args' section, including defaults, examples, and explanations like location IDs and competition levels. It provides far more meaning than the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Get keyword ideas from Google Ads Keyword Planner.' It specifies the output includes search volume, competition level, and bid estimates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_keyword_forecast (forecasting) and google_ads_get_keyword_performance (historical performance).

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 explains how to generate suggestions using seed keywords or a webpage URL. It provides an example and common location/language IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites like customer setup.

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