direct_get_group_negatives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'READ', indicating a non-mutating behavior, and scopes it to ad group negatives. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, permissions, or parameter interactions.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded with the action ('READ') and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format, how filters combine, and what the 'limit' applies to. The current one-liner is not enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 only 25% (only the 'project' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no parameter specifics—it does not explain 'limit', 'adgroup_ids', or 'campaign_ids' or their relationships. The adgroup context is inferred from the name, but that is not sufficient.

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?

The description uses a clear verb ('READ') and specifies the exact resource ('ad group NegativeKeywords'). It also differentiates from campaign-level negatives, distinguishing it from sibling tools like direct_get_negatives.

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?

It clearly states that this tool handles ad group negatives and that they are separate from campaign-level negatives, giving an implicit when-not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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