adgroup_negative_keywords_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'finds' with a selector, omitting important details such as whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no matches are found.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but could benefit from breaking into two sentences or adding structure for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested selector object, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the selector concept. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents most parameters.

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 states the verb 'Find', specifies the resource 'ad-group-level negative keywords', and clarifies the scope 'across all ad groups in a campaign'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'adgroup_negative_keywords_get' (single) and 'adgroup_negative_keywords_list' (likely simpler listing) by mentioning the use of a selector.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adgroup_negative_keywords_list' or 'campaign_negative_keywords_find'. It does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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