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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, scope of results, or filtering behavior, which would be valuable for a list tool.

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 a single four-word phrase, front-loaded and free of waste. It is arguably under-specified, but that is a completeness concern rather than a structural flaw.

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 list tool with four optional filter parameters, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what is returned, how results are filtered, or how to use the optional IDs.

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 description mentions no parameters at all. With only 25% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate for undocumented parameters (profile_id, ad_group_id, campaign_id), but it provides zero parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (SP negative keywords), making the tool's basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely named siblings like ads_list_sp_keywords or ads_list_sp_negative_targets, so an agent must still infer which list is appropriate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or filtering conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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