jackpotkeywords_recommend_deep

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses: cost ($0.30), refund policy on failure, latency (75-200 seconds), and suggests generous timeouts. Also mentions parallel competitor discovery and what additional data is returned. No contradictions.

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, well-structured paragraph. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, differentiation, usage guidance, cost, refund, latency, timeout. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description explains what return values include (cluster, category, competitor-brand aggregates) but lacks detailed format. However, it covers cost, latency, refund policy, and use-case, making it fairly complete for the complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Same inputs as jackpotkeywords_recommend' and clarifying that the limit does not affect clusters/categories/competitors, which is not in the schema. This extra context elevates the score.

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 starts with 'Run the deep keyword research pipeline for a product' which clearly states the verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool jackpotkeywords_recommend by noting additional outputs (clusters, categories, competitor aggregates), making the tool's unique scope clear.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this when you need to see WHICH keyword clusters matter and WHO else is ranking, in one call.' It implies that for simpler needs, the sibling recommend tool is appropriate. Also provides critical usage details (cost, latency, timeout advice).

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