campaign_negative_keywords_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it fetches a keyword, but does not disclose if it is read-only, any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The agent has no behavioral insight beyond the stated action.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity (e.g., clarifying the output).

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?

Lacking an output schema and annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits with sibling tools. The parameter documentation is minimal, leaving the agent with significant unknowns for a precise fetch operation.

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 only 33% (orgId has a description; campaignId and keywordId have none). The description does not add any parameter details beyond the obvious. With three parameters and little schema documentation, the description should have elaborated on the IDs or usage, but it does not.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single campaign-level negative keyword'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list, create, delete, update, and find, which operate on collections or have different behaviors.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a specific keywordId for a campaign. However, no explicit guidance is given on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., list or find) are not mentioned. The description lacks context for distinguishing from sibling 'get' or 'find' tools.

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