amazon ads get sb negative keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond those hints: results include archived entities and a single call is only a partial view requiring further paging. Some gaps remain (no per-call caps or rate limits), but the added pagination warning is valuable.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the pagination caveat. Every sentence carries function.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the pagination requirement plus archived-entity inclusion cover the main risks. Missing is any note on how campaign/ad-group filters interact with the returned page or expected ordering, though the schema mitigates much of that.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents limit, states, startIndex, campaignIds, adGroupIds, and the accountId profile-ID convention. The description only alludes to cursor/offset without naming the parameters or explaining filtering semantics, so it provides no meaningful lift over the schema.

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 ("List one page of Sponsored Brands negative keywords") and adds scope ("including archived entities"), which separates it from the account-level amazon_ads_get_negative_keywords. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, amazon_ads_get_sb_negative_targets, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives a clear pagination instruction ("Follow the returned cursor or offset; one page is not the whole inventory"), which is real usage guidance for invocation. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many sibling listing tools, leaving the agent to infer that this is the SB-specific negative keyword lister.

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