list_shared_negative_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses the behavior of the tool by listing the output fields (id, name, campaign attachment count, and item count). This goes beyond the basic 'List' verb and gives the agent a clear expectation of what will be returned, fulfilling the transparency burden for a simple read-only operation.

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 clearly states the purpose and includes useful return-field information without any fluff. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It states what is listed and the key output attributes, and the presence of an output schema means detailed return value documentation is not required. The description covers the essential context needed by an agent.

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 a single required parameter, account_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description refers to 'account-level' lists, which indirectly clarifies that account_id identifies the account, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's format or role. It adds some semantic value but could be more direct in linking account_id to the operation.

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 that this tool lists account-level negative-keyword lists shared across campaigns. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('negative-keyword lists'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_negative_keywords by noting it operates at the account level and is shared across campaigns.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for account-level shared negative lists, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from the sibling list_negative_keywords, which likely handles individual negative keywords.

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