aeo_opportunities

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the request budget (~1+10 per seed), that autocomplete is capped, and that partial per-source failures surface in `errors`. This is genuinely useful operational context, though auth/read-only nature and data source freshness are left implicit.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with what the tool is before the mechanics. Every clause adds information; phrasing is jargon-heavy in places ('AEO', 'title angle') but not padding.

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 explained, and the `errors` note is a nice touch. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving geo and timeframe unexplained makes the definition incomplete for correct 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 0%, so the description must define all four parameters. It only covers two: seeds (1-5) and limit ('clusters (1-25)'). geo and timeframe (including the non-obvious default 'today 3-m') are left entirely undefined.

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?

States a concrete function (an AEO opportunity finder) and details the output: question-shaped searches clustered by seed/title angle and scored with several signals. The purpose is clear, but no sibling is named, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone how this differs from mine_questions, related_queries, or suggest_keywords.

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?

Gives an input constraint ('For 1-5 seeds') but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or explicit alternative. With 13 sibling tools covering overlapping keyword/question space, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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