amazon ads get sb negative targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two non-obvious behaviors beyond that: archived entities are included in the result set, and a single response is an incomplete page requiring cursor/offset continuation.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The resource identification is front-loaded, and the pagination caveat follows immediately behind it where it is most actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. The description covers the two things an agent could get wrong with a paginated read tool: assuming one page is the full inventory and assuming archived entities are excluded. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, states, nextToken, campaignIds, adGroupIds, accountId) is already documented. The description's reference to 'cursor or offset' loosely maps to nextToken but adds no syntax, defaults, or filter semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 targets'), and the 'Sponsored Brands' qualifier plus 'negative targets' separates it from siblings like amazon_ads_get_sd_negative_targets and amazon_ads_get_negative_targets. The scope is further bounded by 'including archived entities', so an agent can identify the resource without opening the schema.

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 concrete usage guidance for pagination: 'Follow the returned cursor or offset; one page is not the whole inventory', which tells the agent how to consume results correctly. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over gateways like amazon_ads_get_sb_targets (positive targets) or the report tools, so no exclusions are provided.

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