negative_keywords_query

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds only the scoping constraint and the notion of a 'bounded' inventory query; it does not add detail about auth, rate limits, or result behavior beyond what annotations and schema 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states purpose and scope immediately, so every part 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?

Given the rich schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is mostly complete: it names the query purpose and adds the important scoping requirement not enforced by schema-level required fields. It lacks explicit usage alternatives, but the structured fields carry most of the remaining burden.

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 13 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions campaign/ad-group scope but does not add syntax, format, or parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('negative-keyword inventory'), plus a scope constraint ('campaign or ad-group scope'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as negative_keyword_get or negative_keywords_query 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 'with a valid campaign or ad-group scope' implies that this tool is used for scoped inventory queries, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus negative_keyword_get or other sibling query tools. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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