List negative keywords

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description ('List existing') is consistent with these annotations and adds no contradictory behavior. It aligns fully with the declared non-mutating nature.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage guidance and edge-case behavior.

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 essential context for the tool's purpose and key behavior, but it does not mention the return format or any additional details like pagination or filtering. For a simple read-only list, this is likely sufficient, though it leaves some room for ambiguity.

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 explains the semantics of campaign_id ('If campaign_id is empty, returns negatives across all campaigns') but does not mention customer_id at all. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions, this partial explanation is helpful but incomplete, leaving the role of customer_id ambiguous.

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's function: listing existing negative keywords for a specific campaign or all campaigns. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource, and the mention of 'check for duplicates' provides context that differentiates it from other 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?

It explicitly says 'Use this before adding negative keywords to check for duplicates,' giving a clear when-to-use instruction. It also explains the behavior when campaign_id is empty, which is a practical usage detail.

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