List shared negative keyword lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the response (ID, name, status, keyword count), but with an output schema present this is largely redundant and no additional behavioral traits (pagination, rate limits, auth) are disclosed.

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 with the core action, followed by return contents and then usage context. Three short sentences that each carry information; the API documentation link is mildly extraneous but not harmful.

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?

With rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, plus useful routing context toward propose_negative_keyword_list. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the single customer_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default fallback to ads.customer_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 all shared negative keyword lists (SharedSets) in the account') with clear scope. It also names the returned fields, which reinforces what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_negative_keyword_list_keywords or get_negative_keyword_list_campaigns, though the scope makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use scenario ('Useful before propose_negative_keyword_list: a suitable list may already exist and just need attaching to a campaign') and names the alternative. There are no when-not-to-use exclusions, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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