list_negative_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or data scope nuances (e.g., only campaign-level, not shared lists). It adds minimal context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the verb, resource, and return fields. There is no filler or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple list tool with straightforward parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the scope (campaign-level), the fields returned, and the action. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not mention prerequisites like needing valid account/campaign IDs, so it is not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the required parameters account_id and campaign_id. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no guidance on their meaning, source, or relationship to the tool's function, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool's action: 'List campaign-level negative keywords' with the specific resource and scope. It also enumerates the return fields (id, text, match type), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_keywords or list_shared_negative_lists.

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 implies usage by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_keywords or list_shared_negative_lists. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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