google_ads_keywords_diagnose

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the read-only nature and details the return structure (severity groups with criterion_id, text, ad_group_id, remediation hint). It clearly communicates the behavioral scope without contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical details on severity groups and fields. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (keywords grouped by severity with identifiers and hints). It also covers usage guidance and parameter context, making it fully self-contained for an agent.

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% for both parameters, and the description adds value by clarifying that campaign_id is required and that customer_id is optional with a fallback. It also explains that diagnosis runs across all ad groups, exceeding the schema details.

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 reports quality-score and delivery-status issues across every keyword in a campaign, grouped by severity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_terms_report by advising to use it first for triage, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 advises to use this tool before pulling raw search-terms reports, providing clear context on when to use it and what alternatives exist. This helps the agent decide the correct workflow order.

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