google_ads_negative_keywords_list

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

Describes as read-only and lists return fields. Without annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, but does not mention error handling, prerequisites, 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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence defines purpose and output, second clarifies scope and sibling differentiation. Efficiently 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?

Fully covers purpose, return fields, scope (campaign-level only), read-only nature, and relationship to sibling tool. No output schema, but description provides sufficient detail for agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and includes detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description repeats the fallback behavior already present in the schema, adding no new value beyond what is already structured.

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?

Clearly states it lists campaign-level negative keyword criteria for a single campaign, specifies return fields (criterion_id, text, match_type), and distinguishes from ad group-level negatives by naming the sibling tool.

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?

Implies usage for campaign-level negatives only and explicitly excludes ad group-level negatives, directing to google_ads_negative_keywords_add_to_ad_group. No explicit when-not or alternatives beyond that, but sufficient context.

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