direct_list_negative_keyword_sets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely repeats structured data. The description adds nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults of 500/0) or ordering, which are the meaningful behavioral gaps here.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource, but it reads as an under-specified fragment rather than an efficiently complete statement. The parenthetical '(required by the API)' is noise that adds confusion instead of value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 3-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the ids/limit/offset semantics and their interaction unexplained, and it misstates the requiredness of ids.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning but only hints at 'Ids'. Worse, it claims Ids are 'required by the API' while the schema marks ids optional with default null and lists zero required parameters, which is misleading. limit and offset are entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific resource ('shared negative keyword sets') filtered by Ids, which distinguishes it from the many other direct_list_* siblings (campaigns, sitelinks, creatives). However it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so the 'list' action is only inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative tools or conditions. The agent gets no signal about when this is preferred over other listing endpoints or how to reach it via prepare/apply flows.

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