get_growth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation in generic terms and does not reveal whether the call is read-only, how growth is computed, what windows are valid, or any rate/auth constraints.

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 six-word, front-loaded single sentence with no filler, repetition, or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and a sibling list of 15, the one-sentence description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection. It leaves 'interest growth' undefined and does not explain how it differs from the other get_* trend tools; the output schema helps with return values but not selection behavior.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents keyword, geo, source, and percent_growth. The description adds only the vague connection between 'windows' and percent_growth, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 gives a specific action (measure) and object (interest growth) and adds the 'specified windows' qualifier, so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_trends or get_interest_by_region, which keeps it below a 5.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool names. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'measure growth,' which is insufficient given 15 sibling tools with overlapping trend/news semantics.

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