search_terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that no keyword match types are inferred, no ad accounts are changed, and the default demo mode uses synthetic heuristic decisions, which is meaningful safety-relevant context. However, it does not explain what 'never Jev' means or describe the output format and any live-mode side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The phrase 'never Jev' is cryptic and unexplained, and the three sentences are mostly negations and caveats rather than a coherent explanation of the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool has a nested input object, no output schema, no annotations, and an unusual demo/live mode split, so the description needs to provide much more context. It does not explain what the tool returns, what a synthetic heuristic decision is, how input should be shaped, or how live mode behaves, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 25%, and the description does little to compensate. It references 'demo mode' and hints at synthetic vs. real behavior, but it does not explain the input object structure, provider differences, or confidence_threshold semantics beyond what the schema already contains.

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 never states a clear verb or object: it says 'Negative keyword candidates require human review' and lists what the tool does not do, but does not explicitly say that the tool generates or evaluates negative keyword candidates from search terms. This under-specification forces an agent to infer the tool's core function from its name and constraints.

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 provides implied workflow context—candidates need human review and no ad accounts are changed—but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like ad_tags, survival, or leads. There are no alternatives named and no conditions for using live versus demo mode.

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