get_negative_keyword_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating no side effects. The description adds detail on returned fields but does not cover pagination, authorization, or other behavioral traits. It adds moderate value 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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, listing return values, and providing usage guidance. It is concise and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main action and return values. However, the lack of parameter documentation and limited sibling differentiation (only one sibling mentioned) leaves minor gaps. Overall, quite complete.

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 0% description coverage for the sole parameter (customer_id), and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The agent has no guidance on its purpose or format, which is a significant gap.

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 lists shared negative keyword lists (SharedSets) and specifies the returned fields (ID, name, status, keyword count). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool propose_negative_keyword_list by advising to call this first to avoid duplicates.

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 explicitly instructs to always call this tool before propose_negative_keyword_list to avoid creating duplicate lists, providing a clear usage context. It does not cover when to avoid or alternative tools, but the given guidance is strong for a key workflow step.

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