ads_keyword_ideas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully notes that any account with Planner access works and that omitting location_ids removes geo constraints. However, it does not explicitly state that at least one seed source should be provided, nor does it mention read-only behavior, failure modes, or limits beyond the limit parameter.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a clean, scannable Args block. Every line adds information (examples, defaults, optionality), with no filler or repetition of schema types.

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 7 parameters and an output schema that covers return shape, the description covers inputs thoroughly and gives practical examples. The only notable gap is not explicitly stating that at least one seed source (keywords or page_url) is expected despite no schema-required parameters.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with examples and defaults: customer_id, seed_keywords with example values, page_url as optional, location_ids with geo ID examples, language_id with constants, limit, and include_adult with its default. This adds substantial meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'generate keyword ideas with avg monthly searches, competition level, and top-of-page bid range' and identifies itself as the 'Keyword Planner research tool.' It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ads_historical_search_volume or ads_keyword_performance, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 opening 'Keyword research' and 'This is the Keyword Planner research tool' imply when to use it, and the seeding options are described. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling should be chosen for historical volume, performance, or adding keywords.

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