get_negative_keyword_list_campaigns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: shared_set_id is numeric from get_negative_keyword_lists, and omitting it shows all attachments. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then parameter usage. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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 read tool with readOnly annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: how to filter by list or see all. No gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains shared_set_id (numeric ID, omit for all) but does not mention customer_id. The description adds partial meaning but is incomplete.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'campaigns attached to a shared negative keyword list'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_negative_keyword_lists (lists lists) and attach/detach operations, though not explicitly naming them.

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 explains when to use the shared_set_id parameter vs omit it, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Usage is implied but lacks exclusions.

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