get_keyword_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (keyword text, match type, quality score, etc.), which helps the agent understand output. No further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with a bullet-point list of return fields. No extraneous 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 the tool has three optional parameters and a defined output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. However, it lacks context about default behavior when parameters are omitted, and does not differentiate the tool from similar sibling tools.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no explanations for the three parameters (customer_id, date_range_start, date_range_end). The tool description also fails to describe these parameters, their format, or their effect on the query. This is a critical gap.

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 'Get keyword metrics including quality scores and competitive data' and lists specific metrics returned. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_ad_performance or get_campaign_performance by focusing on keyword-level data.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_search_terms or discover_keywords. No context about prerequisites, filters, or exclusion criteria is given.

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