Search terms report

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds that results are sorted by impressions and include a status field with ADDED/EXCLUDED/NONE values, but it does not disclose pagination, metric definitions, or open-world response behavior.

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?

Two short sentences pack the core output, the main use case, and sorting behavior with no filler. Every sentence earns its place and the most identifying information 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?

For an 8-parameter report with no output schema, the description is serviceable but not complete. It conveys the main columns and purpose, but leaves filter scoping, date-range behavior, and metric details to the schema or agent inference.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning; it never mentions date ranges, filters, limit, or min_impressions. With 8 parameters and only 63% schema description coverage, the text should compensate for the undocumented ad_group_id, campaign_id, and min_impressions, but it does not.

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 identifies the report as actual search queries that triggered ads, with keyword, status, and metrics, which clearly states what the tool returns. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and does not name sibling tools, but the content is specific enough to distinguish it from keyword_performance and other reports.

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 explicitly frames the tool as 'the main source for finding negative keywords to add,' giving agents a clear trigger for when to use it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lacks the full when/when-not guidance of a 5.

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