keywords_query

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world query. The description adds only that results are "bounded" and require a typed scope, which is useful context but does not elaborate on pagination limits, result ordering, or what the bound actually constrains.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The terseness is efficient, though some of the phrasing ("typed scope") is jargon that could have been made more concrete.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool that exposes filters, grouping, sorting, time ranges, and report-style options, the description says almost nothing about those capabilities or how they relate to a keyword inventory query. The rich schema and output schema help, but the description remains too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema already explains all 13 parameters in detail. The description's "required typed scope" loosely gestures at the scope parameters but adds no syntax, precedence, or selection guidance 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 gives a specific verb ("Query") and resource ("targeting-keyword inventory"), making the operation's intent reasonably clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as keyword_get, keyword_report, keyword_suggestions, or negative_keywords_query.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many keyword-related siblings. "Required typed scope" hints at a precondition but does not explain which scope to choose or when an exact-get or report tool would be more appropriate.

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