get_keyword_ideas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it details what each idea reports ('avg_monthly_searches', 'suggested_bid', 'competition bucket') and explains the expand_ideas behavior ('Expand beyond the seeds to related keywords'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, output details, and a key constraint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor improvement could be more structured formatting, but it earns its sentences.

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 has 7 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, return fields, input requirements, and behavioral notes (expand_ideas). No gaps for the intended use case.

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 adds value by stating the constraint 'Provide at least one of `keywords` or `url`' and clarifies that when 'expand_ideas' is False, 'keywords' is required. This aids correct parameter selection beyond the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Discover keyword ideas from seed phrases and/or a landing-page URL (Keyword Planner).' It specifies the verb (discover) and resource (keyword ideas via Keyword Planner), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_keywords' which retrieve existing keywords.

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 explicitly states a key usage constraint: 'Provide at least one of `keywords` or `url`.' While it does not explicitly list when to use or avoid this tool versus siblings, the context from sibling names (e.g., 'get_keywords', 'estimate_keyword_bids') implies this is for discovery, not retrieval or estimation.

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