get_search_terms_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing about behavior: no mention of pagination behavior, row ordering, whether limit truncates silently, or what a report row contains. The Args block restates schema fields rather than disclosing behavior.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list; nothing is padded or rhetorical. The Args block partially duplicates the schema, but given 0% schema coverage that duplication is functional rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description should tell the agent what a report row contains (which metrics: impressions, clicks, cost, conversions), since that determines whether this tool answers the question. That is missing, though the input side is adequately covered for a read-only reporting tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does document all five parameters with brief meanings. The date_range format hint ('YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD' plus predefined values) and the limit default are genuinely useful, but customer_id's format and the relationship between campaign_id and ad_group_id filters (intersection semantics) remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get search terms that triggered your ads,' which is concrete enough to distinguish a search-terms report from the other report tools in the sibling list. It stops short of naming a specific alternative (e.g., get_keyword_performance_report or execute_gaql) or stating how the scope differs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative for related queries such as raw GAQL or keyword performance. The agent must infer that this is the search-terms reporting tool purely from the name and first sentence.

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