ebay_get_negative_keywords

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation – it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or what data is returned. It simply restates the operation without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds meaning. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward read operation.

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 five optional parameters)Skip no output schema,Skip and a singular sibling tool,Skip this description is too sparse to be complete. It does not mention return format,Skip filtering options,Skip pagination,Skip or the relationship to ad groups/campaigns. An agent would need to infer essential context from the parameter names and external knowledge.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter detail. However, the schema descriptions are tautological ("limit optional endpoint parameter") and do not explain the meaning of parameters like adGroupIds or negativeKeywordStatus. The description does not compensate, so the score stays at the baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: "Get negative keywords." It identifies the operation as retrieving negative keywords through the eBay Marketing API icantly. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool ebay_get_negative_keyword (singular), so an agent might not know whether this returns a list or a single item.

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 ebay_get_negative_keyword, ebay_bulk_create_negative_keyword, or other keyword-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or typical use cases. The description leaves all usage decisions to inference.

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