ads_search_terms_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what data the report returns (queries, cost, conversions) and frames it as an analysis/reporting read. It does not mention permissions, data-availability windows, or result shaping, but for a straightforward report tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed with no contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, the usage guidance follows in one clause, and a clean args block completes it. No filler; every sentence carries weight.

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?

With an output schema present and all four parameters documented with format details, the definition is largely complete for a report tool. The only minor gap is not flagging potential data-availability limits of search-terms reports, which is a small omission against an otherwise thorough definition.

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 — and it fully does. It documents every parameter with concrete format guidance: '10-digit account id', 'GAQL date constant (e.g. LAST_30_DAYS)', 'optional campaign filter', and 'max rows'. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the bare schema titles (Limit, Date Range, Campaign Id, Customer Id).

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?

States a specific resource ('actual queries that triggered ads') with clear output metrics (cost, conversions), and implicitly differentiates from siblings — it is distinct from ads_keyword_performance (keyword-level), ads_campaign_performance (campaign-level), ads_keyword_ideas (suggestions), and ads_historical_search_volume (volume data). An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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?

Explicitly names two use cases: mining new keywords (high converters) and mining negatives (spend, zero conversions). This tells an agent when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use-case framing is strong enough that an agent could route correctly among the ads_* siblings.

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