amazon ads get campaign negative keywords

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results include PAUSED and ARCHIVED by default, and a single call is only one page rather than a full account total, which prevents an agent from treating a truncated result as complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the pagination caveat and the record-type clarification. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 a full output schema and rich annotations, the description needs only to cover what those fields don't: pagination obligation and default state inclusion, both of which it handles. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing against look-alike negative keyword and negative target siblings.

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 every parameter including nextToken, states, maxResults, accountId, and campaignIds is already documented in detail. The description only restates the default-state behavior and the nextToken loop, adding nothing about syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and a precise resource: Sponsored Products campaign negative keywords, scoped to one page. It is distinguishable from the account-level amazon_ads_get_negative_keywords and from campaign negative targets by naming 'keywords' explicitly, but it never names a sibling to sharpen that boundary.

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?

It gives operational guidance ('Continue with nextToken until absent; one page is not an account total' and 'configuration records, not performance metrics'), which tells an agent not to use this for reporting. However, it never states when to choose this over amazon_ads_get_negative_keywords or amazon_ads_get_campaign_negative_targets, so sibling selection is left implicit.

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