list_shared_negative_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds contextual detail about the shared-list behavior (applies to many campaigns at once) but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, empty results, or the meaning of the open-world hint. This is adequate but not rich.

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, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return content; the second explains the shared-list concept and names the sibling it is not. Every clause 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and one obvious parameter, the description covers the essential semantics. The only gap is that it does not mention the customer_id format or any caveats implied by openWorldHint, but these are minor against the provided schema and annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention customer_id at all. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory by name ('customer_id') and the phrase 'in the account' implies its role. The description adds no format or usage detail, but the parameter's intuitive meaning prevents a lower score.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('shared negative-keyword list'), and states exactly what is returned: term counts and attached campaigns. It also differentiates itself from sibling add_negative_keywords by explaining the shared-list concept, so an agent can distinguish the tool without opening schemas.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (to see shared lists and their scope) and explicitly contrasts it with per-campaign add_negative_keywords. However, it does not mention when to use the sibling add_shared_negative_lists, which is the natural alternative for creating such lists, so the guidance stops one step short of fully routing the agent.

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