amazon ads get negative targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its space elsewhere: it discloses that paused and archived entities are included by default and that a single response is a page, not an account total. That pagination caveat is genuinely valuable behavioral context not present in annotations or the schema.

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 operation and scope, then pagination behavior, then a disambiguation note. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the two things an agent most needs to know: pagination must be followed to completion, and the data is configuration rather than metrics. Only the absence of a named alternative for metrics keeps it short of 5.

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%, including detailed docs for states, accountId, nextToken and maxResults, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the archived-included default that the `states` schema already documents, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 targets') with clear scope. It implicitly separates itself from sd/sb and campaign-level negative-target siblings via 'Sponsored Products', but never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Continue with nextToken until absent; one page is not an account total' gives a clear pagination practice, and 'not performance metrics' signals an exclusion. However, it never names the alternative tool (e.g. create_report) for performance data, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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