google_ads_negative_keywords_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral burden. It clearly marks the tool as read-only and describes the return fields (text, match_type, spend, conversions, rationale). While it doesn't cover permissions or rate limits, the core safety trait (non-destructive) is well conveyed.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundant information; every phrase adds value. Efficiently conveys all necessary guidance.

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 explicitly lists return fields and includes an example rationale. All 5 parameters are documented with meaningful context about defaults and fallbacks. The tool's read-only nature and integration with sibling tools are covered.

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%, providing baseline. The description adds context on fallback values for customer_id and target_cpa, explains period format and defaults, and clarifies ad_group_id restriction. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool analyzes recent search-term performance and returns suggested negative keywords based on target CPA. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like google_ads_negative_keywords_add by noting that suggestions are read-only and must be materialized via those tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context (wasteful keywords relative to target CPA) and when-not-to-use (read-only, not applied). Directly names alternative tools (google_ads_negative_keywords_add / add_to_ad_group) for materializing suggestions.

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