keyword_bid_preview

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what the preview validates or how it relates to applying the change.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the amount of content it actually conveys.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and read-only behavior need not be explained. Still, for a tool with many close preview siblings, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct selection and use.

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?

The schema has 67% description coverage, but the description does not explain the nested bid amount/currency object, keywordId, or optional parent assertion parameters. It only vaguely links the tool to a keyword bid, which adds little 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 names a specific verb and resource: "Preview" plus "targeting keyword bid update." It is clearer than a generic update tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as keyword_update_preview or ad_group_bid_preview.

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 word "Preview" implies this should be used before applying a keyword bid change, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives such as keyword_update_preview or operations_apply, leaving selection context inferred.

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