ads_negatives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing safety and behavior. It explicitly says 'read-only' and explains that a negative blocks traffic without leaving a record—important context that influences how the agent interprets search results. This goes beyond the schema and adds meaningful behavioral insight.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is stated first, followed by practical usage guidance. Every clause earns its place—no redundant phrasing or boilerplate.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the return format is already covered. The description fully explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the nuances of the parameter. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, with nothing critical 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?

The schema already documents the 'level' parameter with a 100% description coverage, including its enum values. The description adds extra semantic context about the scoping behavior (campaign-level blocks apply everywhere in the campaign; shared sets apply to all attached campaigns), which enriches understanding beyond the raw schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: read negative keywords at campaign, ad group, or shared-set level. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ads_negatives_update (which implies write) by explicitly noting this is a read-only check, and it is unambiguous about what resource it operates on.

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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios: check when a keyword stops serving with no apparent cause, and check before adding a term twice to avoid duplication. These are concrete triggers that guide the agent toward this tool over alternatives. It also states the read-only nature, which helps the agent avoid using a mutating tool by mistake.

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