list_keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the status_filter value set and a default limit of 200, but says nothing about what happens when more than 200 keywords match (truncation vs. paging), ordering, or return shape. With annotations in place this is an acceptable but thin addition.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact Args block; every line maps to a real parameter. Minor waste in restating the limit default already present in 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 simple four-parameter read with no output schema, an agent can form a correct call from this definition. However, result behavior — whether limit truncates silently, whether results are ordered, and what fields a keyword record contains — is left entirely undisclosed, which matters for a listing 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 must carry the load, and it does the most important part: it enumerates the legal status_filter values ('ENABLED', 'PAUSED', 'REMOVED'), which the schema only types as an unconstrained string/null and would otherwise leave ambiguous. customer_id and ad_group_id are documented thinly ('Google Ads customer ID', 'Ad group ID'), and the documented limit default merely repeats the schema default.

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 ('List keywords') plus scope ('in an ad group'), which separates it cleanly from list_ad_groups, list_ads, and add_keywords. It stops short of naming or contrasting a sibling, so it does not reach the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'in an ad group' — an agent can infer it reads existing keywords rather than creating them. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no alternative named (e.g., execute_gaql for arbitrary keyword queries), and no prerequisites such as account access.

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