amazon ads get campaign negative targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: paused and archived entities are included by default, and the result is inherently paginated so a full answer requires looping on nextToken. The clarifying note that these are configuration records rather than performance metrics further prevents misreading of the payload.

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 core action, then the pagination constraint, then a semantic caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and there is no filler.

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 only needs to add the non-obvious parts, and it does: default state inclusion, mandatory pagination, and config-vs-metrics semantics. The one remaining gap is disambiguation from the similarly named negative-target siblings across SD/SB/campaign scopes.

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 schema already explains accountId, states defaults, nextToken, maxResults, and campaignIds in detail. The description only reinforces the pagination token behavior; it adds no syntax, format, or constraint meaning beyond what the schema states, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Read one page of Amazon Sponsored Products campaign negative targets'), making the entity type unmistakable. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'amazon_ads_get_negative_targets' or from 'amazon_ads_get_sd_negative_targets', so an agent must infer the campaign-level vs. other-level scope from the name alone.

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 concrete operational guidance ('Continue with nextToken until absent; one page is not an account total'), which steers the agent away from treating a single response as complete. What is missing is guidance on when to choose this tool over the closely named alternatives (get_negative_targets, get_campaign_negative_keywords); usage relative to siblings is only implied.

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