Keywords in a negative keyword list

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description ('List the keywords') is consistent with a read-only operation. However, the description does not add any extra behavioral context beyond this, such as error conditions or side effects, so it does not go beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, comprising one sentence for the main purpose and a brief parameter clarification. It is well-structured and efficiently conveys the essential information without any fluff or redundancy.

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 the core purpose and the key parameter, but it omits any mention of customer_id, which could be relevant for context. It also does not indicate prerequisites or typical usage scenarios, though the output schema is provided separately. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is mostly complete but has clear gaps.

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 schema has two parameters (customer_id and shared_set_id), but the description only explains shared_set_id, providing its source and type. customer_id is entirely omitted. Since schema coverage is 0% and the description only covers half of the parameters, it fails to compensate adequately for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action (list) and the resource (keywords inside a shared negative keyword list), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_negative_keyword_lists (which lists the lists) and get_negative_keyword_list_campaigns (which lists associated campaigns).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to list keywords inside a specific negative keyword list) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide conditions for selection. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' criterion.

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