get_negative_keywords

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true), confirming a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, performance characteristics, or scope limitations beyond what annotations already provide.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (context: true) and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It might benefit from mentioning that entity_ids can be campaign or ad group IDs, but the schema already handles that.

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, with all three parameters documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the resource type. Baseline 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 'List negative keywords attached to campaigns or ad groups' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('negative keywords'), with clear context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_keywords (positive keywords) and add_negative_keywords (write operation).

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?

Usage context is implied (reading negatives), but there is no explicit statement on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_negative_keywords or remove_negative_keywords, nor any when-not conditions. The description provides minimal guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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