ads_telegram_ai_keyword_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the load; it does disclose read-only behavior and that it never contacts Telegram, which is valuable safety context. It omits pagination/limit behavior, how windows are computed, and what the source counters represent.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and adds the return-content and safety notes without waste.

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 annotations, no output schema, and seven undocumented parameters, the description leaves substantial gaps for a filtering/aggregation tool – it should explain at least the filter dimensions and default project scoping.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains none of them. It gestures at 'source counters' and 'recent-vs-previous trend direction', which loosely hint at source_type and window_days, but nothing about kind, topic, status, limit, or project_id defaults.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('aggregated Telegram AI demand keywords') plus what the listing contains (source counters, trend direction). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling observability/rebuild tools, though it never names them explicitly.

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 implied by the phrase 'aggregated ... keywords': this is a read of pre-aggregated data, in contrast to siblings like ads_telegram_ai_keyword_observe or ads_telegram_ai_keyword_rebuild. However, no when-to-use/when-not guidance or explicit alternative is offered.

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