search_term_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description's only added behavioral signal is the word 'bounded,' hinting at a limited result window, but it says nothing about default time ranges, row limits, or pagination behavior beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.

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 9 parameters, 2 required (profile, adAccountId), and report semantics around time ranges and field selection, a one-line description is thin. Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description doesn't tell the agent what kind of rows come back or what the required context is.

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 parameters (fields, filters, groupBy, timeRange, pagination, etc.) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what structured fields provide, which is baseline-acceptable at this coverage level.

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 concrete verb ('Read') and resource ('search-term performance rows'), which distinguishes it from the similarly named search_term_popularity sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other report tools like keyword_report or ad_group_report, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 no indication of when to choose this tool over keyword_report, ad_group_report, or search_term_popularity. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection guidance, so the agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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