gold_keyword_gap_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is PAID ONLY PRO $29 with no free tier, that it uses a 'bsearch heuristic,' and that it flags results with 0-1 shops as OPEN. This is meaningful behavioral information, though it omits auth, error, and response-structure detail.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope, output semantics, and pricing. Every fragment provides useful signal. It is telegraphic rather than fully structured, but the conciseness is effective.

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?

The description captures essential operational constraints and output meaning, and the lack of annotations means it must cover a lot. However, it does not explain prerequisites, return format, authentication, or when to use this versus siblings like gold_semrush_gap, so an agent still faces meaningful ambiguity in real invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'region=il' to the gl parameter, 'lang=he' to the lang parameter, and '100 queries' to the queries limit, adding semantics the schema does not fully provide. The 'lang=he' vs schema default 'lang=iw' is a minor ambiguity, but the intent is clear.

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 concrete operation, 'Bulk gap scan', and adds operational detail: 100 queries, region=il, lang=he, bsearch heuristic, and the output meaning 'Flags 0-1 shops = OPEN.' This makes the tool's function reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling gold_semrush_gap.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gold_semrush_gap or the other keyword tools. The description implies bulk Hebrew/Israel usage but never states conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent is left to infer the right selection context.

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