Keywords in a negative keyword list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned fields and the resource_id format, which is mild extra context, but it omits pagination behavior and any rate-limit or auth caveats. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then return shape. The trailing Google Ads API link is minor filler but not disruptive.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety; parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only real gap is the absence of usage/routing guidance, which is not strictly required to call the tool correctly.

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 and shared_set_id) are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to get_negative_keyword_lists for the ID. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so 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 and resource ("List the keywords inside a shared negative keyword list") and specifies scope precisely. It is distinguishable from get_negative_keyword_lists and get_negative_keyword_list_campaigns by the "keywords inside" phrasing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to use it versus get_negative_keyword_lists or get_negative_keyword_list_campaigns, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that a valid shared_set_id must first come from get_negative_keyword_lists). No when/when-not guidance is present.

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