google_ads_negative_keywords_suggest

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

The description discloses the tool is read-only, does not apply suggestions, and describes output fields (text, match_type, spend, conversions, rationale). With no annotations provided, it adequately covers behavioral traits, though it omits potential limits or quotas.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding necessary context without fluff. Every word contributes value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists return fields and provides a rationale example. Combined with the detailed schema, it gives complete context for an agent to 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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool analyzes recent search-term performance and returns suggested negative keywords that waste spend relative to a target CPA. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives for materializing suggestions.

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 states the tool is read-only and suggestions are not applied, directing users to 'google_ads_negative_keywords_add / add_to_ad_group' to materialize them after operator review. 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.