google_ads_keywords_diagnose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares 'Read-only,' and describes the output format (grouped by severity with specific fields and remediation hints). This fully discloses the behavioral traits and return structure beyond what annotations would cover.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output details, and usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the output (grouped by severity with criterion_id, text, ad_group_id, remediation hints). It covers input parameters, behavior (read-only), and usage sequence. Completely adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the scope ('Diagnosis runs across all ad groups under this campaign') but does not add individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 explicitly states the tool reports quality-score and delivery-status issues across every keyword in a campaign, listing specific issue categories. The verb 'reports' and resource 'keywords' are clear, and the scope is well-defined. While not explicitly differentiating from siblings, the purpose is so specific it naturally distinguishes itself.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use this before pulling raw search-terms reports; it triages where attention should go.' This advises the agent on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, which would warrant a 5.

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