google_ads_keywords_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly declares 'Read-only', covering the main safety aspect, and describes output fields including the 'if overridden' caveat for cpc_bid_micros. However, it omits operational details such as pagination or rate limits, so it isn't fully 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Each sentence adds value: scope, return fields, read-only, and use cases. No redundancy with the schema.

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?

For a list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, return fields, side-effect safety, and use cases. It even notes the subscription of cpc_bid_micros and provides a sibling alternative, making it contextually complete.

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?

Input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'optionally scoped to a campaign and/or ad group and filtered by status', which restates schema semantics without adding new format or behavioral detail. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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?

Description starts with 'Lists keyword criteria' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the returned fields and explicitly pointing to google_ads_keywords_diagnose for quality-score diagnostics, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

States concrete use cases: locating a criterion_id before pause/remove and auditing keyword coverage. It explicitly names an alternative (google_ads_keywords_diagnose) for quality-score diagnostics, establishing when not to use this tool.

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