google_ads_negative_placements_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only and capped at 1000 rows per level, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not describe every possible edge case, but for a read-only listing tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then lists return fields, then provides usage context and an alternative. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 fully covers what the tool returns, its limitations (read-only, cap), use cases, and relationship to sibling tools. The schema covers parameters, and no output schema exists, so this description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage, and each parameter (ad_group_id, campaign_id, customer_id) has a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter explanation, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 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 lists delivery-surface exclusions (websites, apps, app categories) at campaign and ad group level, and names the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling google_ads_negative_keywords_list, so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 says when to use this tool: to get criterion_id for google_ads_negative_placements_remove or to diagnose delivery collapse after a bulk exclusion pass. It also directly names the alternative for excluded search terms (google_ads_negative_keywords_list), offering clear usage guidance.

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