get_negative_keywords

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only names a resource and says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, data scope, or response characteristics. It is a minimal fragment rather than a disclosure of behavior.

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?

'Campaign-level negative keywords.' is tight and front-loaded with no filler, but it is a noun fragment rather than a complete description. It is concise but under-specified for a tool definition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this one-line description leaves the agent without information about return shape, how customer_id affects behavior, or any edge cases. The minimal resource label is not enough to fully support correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the description does not mention customer_id at all. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage and does not, the agent gains no additional parameter meaning beyond the parameter name and nullable/default metadata.

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 phrase 'campaign-level negative keywords' clearly identifies the resource and scope of this retrieval call, and the 'get' verb in the tool name completes the action. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_keyword_performance, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 instead of alternatives like run_gaql or get_keyword_performance. There is no mention of intended scenarios, exclusions, or other tools to prefer.

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