google_ads_list_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and return type, omitting details like whether it requires specific permissions, if the list is exhaustive, or any side effects. This leaves significant uncertainty for an agent.

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 very short, with a clear structure: a summary line followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary, but it could be more concise by omitting the explicit 'Args' and 'Returns' labels, though this structure aids readability. No waste, but slightly overly terse.

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 tool's simplicity (list keywords) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately states the input and output. However, it lacks contextual details like pagination, permission requirements, or scope limitations (e.g., maximum results). For a basic tool, it is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'customer_id: Customer ID (without hyphens)' provides a format hint, and 'ad_group_id: Ad group ID' identifies the parameter. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not clarify the expected format or constraints beyond the schema's type.

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 action: 'List all keywords in an ad group.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (keywords), and scope (ad group), making it distinct from sibling tools like add_keywords or get_keyword_performance. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_ads, list_ad_groups), but the purpose is still clear.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an ad group ID, nor does it exclude scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_keyword_performance) would be more appropriate. A user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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