amazon ads get negative keywords

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value: default inclusion of paused and archived states, the mandatory pagination loop, and the fact that results are configuration records rather than metrics. It stops short of mentioning rate limits or result ordering, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 with zero filler: scope first, then the pagination rule, then a clarifying note on data type. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

The tool has a rich schema and an output schema, so return shape need not be explained; the description covers the remaining risks — partial results and the continuation loop. Nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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%, so every parameter including states, nextToken, maxResults, campaignIds, and accountId is already documented in the schema. The only added semantic is the default-includes-archived note for states, which largely echoes the schema default, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Read one page of Amazon Sponsored Products negative keywords') and clarifies scope by saying paused and archived entities are included by default. It implicitly separates this from the SB/SD and campaign-level negative-keyword siblings via the 'Sponsored Products' qualifier, but never names an alternative 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?

Gives clear operational context: continue with nextToken until absent, and a single page is not an account total, which tells the agent how to consume the tool. It also disambiguates intent ('configuration records, not performance metrics'), but offers no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling routing.

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