get_growth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that the tool estimates momentum (not raw data), operates on known keywords, and works across growth windows. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first defines the tool's function, the second routes the agent to the correct sibling. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the core decision point is front-loaded.

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 the annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the core concept, the relevant use case, and the alternative tool without requiring additional inference.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context like 'known keywords' and 'growth windows', but it does not materially enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate momentum for one or more known keywords across requested growth windows.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_trends, making it clear this tool computes percentage growth rather than returning raw time series.

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 direct selection guidance: 'Use this when percentage growth is the goal; use get_trends when the user needs the underlying historical time series.' This explicitly names the alternative and the condition for choosing between them.

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