Campaigns using a negative keyword list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description uses 'List' which is consistent. No additional behavioral details such as rate limits or permissions are provided, but the annotations cover the essential safety aspects.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then explaining the optional parameter. Every sentence adds value without fluff or repetition.

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?

The description provides enough context for a simple read-only tool, especially since an output schema exists (so return values need not be described). The only minor gap is the lack of explanation for customer_id, but this is a common parameter across sibling tools and likely self-explanatory.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains shared_set_id and its omission behavior, but does not explain customer_id, which is also a parameter. This leaves one parameter semantically ambiguous.

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 purpose: to list which campaigns a negative keyword list is attached to. It uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource (campaigns) and the scope (negative keyword list), making it distinct from related tools.

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 guidance on omitting the shared_set_id to see all attachments, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_negative_keywords or get_negative_keyword_lists. No when-not or alternative context is given.

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