amazon ads get sd negative targets

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds real value beyond them: an entitlement precondition (Display eligibility), a pagination model caveat (offset-based rather than cursor), and a result-fidelity warning that full pages are conservatively marked partial. The note that records are not performance metrics also prevents misinterpretation 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?

Roughly four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then eligibility, pagination, and a data caveat. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the 'Creatives include native media references' sentence is tangential to negative targets and reads as an aside.

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 structure needn't be described, and the description covers the remaining agent-relevant concerns: entitlement, pagination mechanics, and partial-page semantics. It omits any mention of what a negative target record keys on or how it relates to SD campaigns/ad groups, which would help in a 30-sibling namespace.

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 accountId, count, and startIndex are already fully documented, and the description does not restate them. It does add one genuinely useful semantic point — that paging is offset-based via startIndex rather than a cursor — which earns slightly more than the baseline but not a high score.

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 Sponsored Display negative targets'), and the 'Sponsored Display' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling SB and generic negative-target tools. It stops short of naming the alternative tools explicitly, so differentiation is by naming convention rather than by routing.

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?

'Requires Display eligibility' gives one concrete prerequisite for when the tool is callable, and the pagination sentence gives call mechanics. However there is no guidance on when to choose this over amazon_ads_get_sd_targets, amazon_ads_get_campaign_negative_targets, or amazon_ads_get_negative_targets, leaving usage largely implied by the name.

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