google_ads_negative_keywords_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares the operation as read-only and outlines the returned fields, while also clarifying the scope limitation. It lacks details about pagination or edge cases, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the action and scope, second lists return fields, third clarifies an important exclusion. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly states the return fields. Combined with complete parameter schema and clear scope, this covers all essential context for a list tool. Slight gaps remain about fallback behavior for customer_id and empty-result handling, but these are minor.

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 both parameters include descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional semantic context for the parameters, relying fully on the schema definitions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('campaign-level negative keyword criteria for a single campaign'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from ad group-level negatives. It also enumerates the returned fields, making its function unmistakable.

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 clearly states it applies to a single campaign and explicitly excludes ad group-level negatives, directing users to the appropriate sibling tool (google_ads_negative_keywords_add_to_ad_group). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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