google_ads_keywords_suggest

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly discloses the key trait: 'Read-only — produces ideas but does not add anything to the account.' It also lists the return fields, which is useful. It does not mention potential rate limits or auth requirements, but the most important non-obvious behavior (no side effects) is clearly stated.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: what the tool does, what it returns, and important behavioral/alternative guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential context: it names the API, lists return fields, and states the read-only nature. Since there is no output schema, the return-field list is helpful. It does not mention result count limits or pagination, but these are not critical for a suggestion tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'seed terms' but does not elaborate on parameter formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what is already in the input schema. No compensation needed.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Generates new keyword ideas from seed terms using the Google Ads Keyword Planner API.' It uses a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('keyword ideas'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like google_ads_keywords_add and google_ads_keywords_list by explaining it only produces ideas.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Read-only — produces ideas but does not add anything to the account. Use google_ads_keywords_add to materialize the ones you want.' This directly names the sibling tool for the follow-up action and clarifies the read-only nature, providing clear context for usage.

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