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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the paged response contract (truncated/offset), the scale warning about 500+ negatives per campaign, and the return fields (state and source). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences totaling roughly 35 words, with the resource and scope front-loaded before the critical paging warning. Every clause earns its place — there is no filler or repetition of what the schema already states.

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?

It captures the essential usage loop (paging with offset until truncated=false) and notes the included fields (state, source), which matters because there is no output schema. But with no output schema and half the parameters undocumented, the agent is left to infer response shape details and the precise behavior of campaign_id and type/state combinations.

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 coverage is exactly 50%: limit, offset, and profile_id are documented in the schema; type and state are self-documenting via enums; campaign_id is undocumented. The description adds meaning to offset through the paging protocol ('until truncated=false') and hints at campaign_id via the 'campaign- and ad-group-level' scope, but it does not fully compensate for campaign_id lacking a schema description or clarify how type/state filter the returned negatives.

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 identifies the resource ('negative keywords and negative product targets') and scope ('campaign- and ad-group-level'), and the 'Current' prefix implicitly distinguishes this from stage_negatives and ppc_negation_candidates among the siblings. However, there is no explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' — the action is implied by the noun phrase rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit, actionable directive: 'page with offset until truncated=false before any account-wide scope audit,' backed by a concrete rationale ('a single campaign can hold 500+ negatives'). This tells an agent exactly how to avoid a real truncation failure mode. However, it never states when not to use the tool or names alternatives such as stage_negatives for staged changes.

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