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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that results are scoped per channel (a genuinely consequential behavior disclosed only in the schema) or anything about result volume or aggregation when searching multiple names.

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 short sentence front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is perhaps too terse rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully described two-parameter schema and no output schema, the minimum needed to call it correctly is present indirectly via the schema. However, the description omits the channel-scoping caveat and any note about return shape or result limits, leaving it adequate but not complete.

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 both `name` (single/array, partial matching, dedup) and `channel` (per-channel isolation, default GOOGLE_ADS) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the name filter and adds no syntax or semantics of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("List and search negative keywords lists") and notes the name filter, so an agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like create/delete/duplicate. It does not differentiate itself from the closest read sibling, get_negative_keywords_list_details, which an agent would need to choose between.

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 phrase "by name filter" hints at one usage mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_negative_keywords_list_details, and no note about which channel to query. With ~130 siblings, an agent gets no routing help.

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