get_negative_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return scope (campaign-level + shared lists, with items and associations), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, performance, pagination, or the meaning of a null campaign_id. For a get tool, the absence of read-only declaration is minor, but the missing parameter semantics affects transparency.

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, no fluff. The primary function is front-loaded, and the usage note is appended succinctly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and usage instruction. However, it omits the parameter's behavior (what null means) and gives no sense of the return format beyond a high-level description. Given how much an agent needs to call it correctly, this is a noticeable gap, but the tool is simple enough that it is not critical.

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 schema has one parameter (campaign_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its meaning or the effect of null. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no clarity on whether null retrieves all campaigns or something else. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 states exactly what is retrieved: 'Campaign-level negatives + ALL shared negative keyword lists (with items and campaign associations).' The verb is implicit (get), but the resource is specific and the scope is clear. It also distinguishes from sibling add/remove tools by focusing on retrieval.

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 instruction 'Always call before recommending/adding negatives' gives explicit when-to-use guidance, which is strong. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use this tool, or that get_entities might also provide similar data). It is clear enough for a simple workflow.

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