ebay_get_ad_group_negative_keyword

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read operation ('Get details') but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate but lacking depth.

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 concise sentence of 10 words, front-loading the purpose without any fluff. Every word is necessary and earned its place, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 retrieval tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It does not describe the return value or any edge cases, which could be improved but is not critically incomplete given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter's description (e.g., 'Ad Group ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses a clear verb 'Get details' and specifies the resource 'ad group-level negative keyword'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ebay_get_ad_group_negative_keywords' (plural) by indicating it retrieves a single, specific keyword. However, 'details' is somewhat vague and could be more precise.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ebay_get_ad_group_negative_keywords' or 'ebay_create_ad_group_negative_keyword'. There is no mention of context, preconditions, or exclusions.

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