campaign_negative_keywords_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates pagination via the parenthetical 'paginated,' but does not discuss sorting, default pages, or whether it is read-only. Key traits like potential large result sets or empty results are omitted.

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 phrase, 'List campaign-level negative keywords (paginated).' While concise, it is too minimal to provide value. It lacks complete sentences and structure, and could be expanded to include key details without verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description should at minimum hint at the structure of returned items or mention common fields. It also does not clarify default pagination values, error handling, or that it lists all negative keywords for a given campaign. The context of sibling tools and required parameters suggests more information is needed.

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 adds 'paginated' implying use of limit/offset, but the input schema already documents three of four parameters. The campaignId parameter lacks a description in both schema and tool description. The description provides little additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool lists campaign-level negative keywords and mentions pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools that create, delete, or update negative keywords, and the name clarifies the campaign level versus adgroup level.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like campaign_negative_keywords_find or adgroup_negative_keywords_list. The description does not mention any context or exclusions.

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