Campaigns using a negative keyword list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is raw list-to-campaign attachment records (IDs and names) rather than campaign objects, which is modestly useful context beyond the annotations and the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded first sentence answers the core question, followed by a brief return-value note; nothing redundant. The trailing Google Ads API documentation link is largely filler for an agent that already has the schema and output schema.

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 read-only lookup with both parameters optional, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose and returned fields adequately. Minor omissions (pagination behavior, or that an empty result is expected when the list is unattached) do not impede correct invocation.

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 100%, so both parameters (customer_id default behavior, shared_set_id source and omit-meaning) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and a precise resource (which campaigns a shared negative keyword list is attached to), which is naturally distinguishable from get_negative_keyword_lists and get_negative_keyword_list_keywords. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent gets no direct differentiation beyond the topic wording.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a shared_set_id from get_negative_keyword_lists), and no alternatives. The only usage hint - that omitting shared_set_id returns everything - lives in the input schema, not here.

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