Получить минус-фразы кампаний

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds only the word 'текущие' (current), which hints the result reflects live state, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what happens with unknown IDs.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is tightly scoped, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a retrieval tool.

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?

With one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about the shape and volume of the returned negative-keyword data.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'по их ID' merely restates the campaign_ids parameter without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('получить минус-фразы кампаний'), so an agent knows it reads campaign-level negative keywords. It is distinguishable from the sibling set_campaign_negative_keywords, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing campaign IDs that already exist), and no routing to alternatives such as list_keywords or set_campaign_negative_keywords. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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