jackpotkeywords_recommend

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: cost structure ($0.10 flat), automatic refunds on failure, latency range (60-180 seconds), and reliance on real data. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but the provided details are valuable.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core function, data source, pricing, and latency. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource. No unnecessary words.

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 5 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and key execution details (cost, latency). However, it lacks information about the return format or how agents should handle the output, which is a gap for autonomous use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it lists composite score components but does not explain how parameters like 'budget' or 'location' influence results. No additional parameter insights.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs a full keyword research pipeline, returns ranked recommendations by Jackpot Score, specifies the data source (Google Ads Keyword Planner), and mentions key output criteria. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like the deep version.

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 mentions cost and latency but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., jackpotkeywords_recommend_deep) or alternatives. It does not state prerequisites or context for optimal use.

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