google_ads_keywords_audit

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses read-only nature, that recommendations are not applied, and details the content of each recommendation item (criterion_id, text, spend, conversions, reason). It adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could mention response size or pagination.

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?

Single dense paragraph with front-loaded purpose, then list of recommendation categories, item fields, and read-only note. Every sentence is essential; no waste.

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?

No output schema, but the description sufficiently describes the return structure (grouped recommendations with specific fields). It covers available parameters and their defaults/functions. The description is complete for an analysis tool with clear follow-up actions.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it notes target_cpa is used to score efficiency and period accepts specific formats, but these are already in the schema. No new parameter semantics are added.

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 it runs a holistic keyword-portfolio audit for a campaign, listing specific recommendation types (pause, bid-raise, match-type-tighten, unused ideas). This differentiates it from sibling tools like google_ads_keywords_diagnose or google_ads_keywords_list by focusing on audit and grouped recommendations.

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 states the tool is read-only and recommendations are not applied, and directs the agent to materialize them via google_ads_keywords_pause, add, or negative_keywords.add. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative actions.

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