get_keyword_performance

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and operational behavior. It lists return metrics but omits any mention of read-only guarantees, pagination, rate limits, or failure modes. For a read-oriented reporting tool, the absence of such context is a gap.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in a single sentence, then provides a compact, well-formatted argument list. No fluff; each sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema available and all parameters documented, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It lacks explicit behavioral caveats (e.g., pagination), but these are partially mitigated by the output schema and the simplicity of the tool. Slightly incomplete on side effects, hence a 4.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with examples and constraints: customer_id format (10 digits, dashes optional), date_range syntax (GAQL literals with examples), and campaign_id's optional restriction role. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get keyword-level performance metrics' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the metrics (impressions, clicks, cost, conversions). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance and get_ad_group_performance, which target different hierarchical levels.

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 implies its use for keyword-level metrics but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as run_gaql or get_ad_group_performance. It mentions an optional campaign_id but gives no when-to-use guidance versus other reporting tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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