negative_keyword_get

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'current-state verification' framing, but it does not add meaningful behavioral context such as whether missing IDs return null/error or whether results are strongly consistent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

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 and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is nearly complete for a simple get tool, with only minor missing guidance on sibling selection and parameter distinction.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description says 'by ID' but does not clarify the relationship between the 'id' and 'negativeKeywordId' parameters, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read one negative keyword by ID.' The word 'one' helps distinguish it from list-query siblings such as negative_keywords_query, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 phrase 'for current-state verification' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over negative_keywords_query or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not fully specified.

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