get_keyword_forecasts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (clicks/impressions/CPC/cost), the default behavior for max_cpc (falls back to MS_ADS_MAX_CPC cap), and the scope. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (no side effects) or mention any limits or error handling. The behavioral context is useful but not exhaustive, especially given the absence of 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and output, then adding scope and a pointer to a sibling. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 description covers the purpose, output metrics, default max_cpc, and scope, and points to discover_keywords for the advertiser settings. However, it does not explain the match_type parameter, the exact output format (e.g., per-keyword breakdown), or any additional behaviors like error cases or rate limits. Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, it is moderately complete but leaves key details unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'keywords' (candidate keywords) and 'max_cpc' (defaults to the account's MS_ADS_MAX_CPC cap), but it completely omits 'match_type', which is a parameter with a default value. Without explanation, an agent may not know that match_type is valid (e.g., Exact, Phrase, Broad) or how it affects results. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 it provides traffic estimates (clicks/impressions/CPC/cost) for candidate keywords, with a verb implied by 'get' and the resource as keyword forecasts. It also mentions scope (location/language/network), which adds specificity. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_keyword_performance, but the context 'candidate keywords' implies planning vs. actual performance, so it's mostly clear.

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 some context—it's for candidate keywords and is scoped to advertiser settings, referencing discover_keywords to see those settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_keyword_performance for actual data, or others), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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