google_ads_keywords_cross_adgroup_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only' and describes what the tool returns (groups of duplicate criteria, spend, conversions, quality score, consolidation recommendation). It does not mention auth/permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only analysis tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the action, then state the return value, then provide usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or filler content.

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 exists, but the description adequately explains the return value ('groups of duplicate criteria with per-ad-group spend, conversions, and quality score, plus a consolidation recommendation'). Combined with the complete input schema, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents campaign_id, period, and customer_id with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Finds the same text+match_type keyword appearing across multiple ad groups in a campaign.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like google_ads_keywords_list or google_ads_keywords_audit by focusing on cross-ad-group duplicate detection.

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?

It provides explicit context: 'run this before a keyword restructuring sprint' and explains why duplicates are problematic ('compete in the auction and hurt aggregate quality score'). It doesn't name specific alternatives or when-not conditions, but the use case is clear and well-situated among siblings.

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