get_negative_keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the campaign_id behavior (empty returns all campaigns). However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination or rate limits.

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 adding value: purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded.

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 covers the main functionality and usage, but omits explanation of the customer_id parameter. With an output schema present, return values are not needed, but parameter documentation is incomplete.

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 description only explains the campaign_id parameter's behavior (empty returns all campaigns). The customer_id parameter is completely undocumented, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate sufficiently.

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 existing negative keywords for a campaign or all campaigns, with a specific verb (list) and resource (negative keywords). It also provides usage context ('before adding') and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_negative_keywords.

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 advises using this tool before adding negative keywords to check for duplicates, and explains behavior when campaign_id is empty. It lacks explicit exclusions but the context is clear.

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