jackpotkeywords_aeo_scan

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: costs $1.00 per scan, automatic refund on failure, latency 30–120 seconds, and details the query process. It does not mention auth or rate limits but covers essential operation traits.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details, then cost/latency. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 covers the outcome per query (cited, mentioned, absent, top sources) despite no output schema. However, it lacks explicit return value structure or format, and could mention whether results are returned as JSON or text. Still sufficient for a paid tool.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value for productContext: explains internal extraction as default, cost implication ($1.00 flat), and when to pre-pass it (only if already called /v1/recommend). This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 clearly states the action 'Run an AI-visibility scan for a product URL' and specifies it involves asking 10 buyer-intent queries against Gemini's grounded search. It distinguishes from sibling tools (audit, credit balance, recommend) by focusing on a specific scan functionality.

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jackpotkeywords_audit or jackpotkeywords_recommend. It only describes what it does without contextual comparison, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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