get_ads_search_terms

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), yet the description adds real behavioral context that appears nowhere else: the 28-day window, spend-based ordering, the fact that low-volume terms Apple hides are aggregated under 'hidden', and the connected=false signal for an unconnected Apple Ads account. With no output schema, these result-semantics details are exactly what the agent needs.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the trailing clauses all carry usable information (column list, use-cases, hidden-terms caveat, connected flag). It is a single dense run-on sentence, which slightly hurts readability, but nothing is redundant.

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 output schema and a complex analytical tool, the description enumerates the returned columns (search term, keyword/match type, spend, taps, installs, CPT, CPI, organic rank) plus the hidden-terms aggregation and connection-state edge cases. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 all three parameters are already documented (appId source, country for the organic rank column, campaign narrowing). The description adds little beyond the schema - it mentions the organic rank 'in the country' but not the campaign parameter or any syntax/format hints - so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (the search terms that triggered Apple Ads), scopes it (last 28 days, sorted by spend), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the adjacent get_ads_keywords by framing the output as search terms vs. the keywords that caught them. An agent can tell it apart from its siblings without opening the schema.

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 gives clear decision context - this is the list to mine for new keywords, negatives, or wasteful spend - which tells the agent why and when to reach for it. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or an when-not-to-use condition, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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