get_growth_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of each action (evidence, steps, suggested tracked link, measurement), which tells the agent this is a derived/analytical read rather than raw data. It says nothing about cost, latency, data-volume prerequisites, or how many actions come back — gaps that matter for a computed-insight tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage instruction. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by clarifying the output; minor verbosity keeps it off a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is right to spell out the return contents in detail, and it does so well. Missing only operational context (volume of actions, minimum data needed, whether it can be called repeatedly), which is minor for a single-parameter derived-insight 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the range format, default, and 90d cap. The description adds no additional meaning about the lookback window, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (ranked, concrete growth actions) and enumerates the actual output categories — channels to double down on, pages to promote, spike causes, best publish time — which effectively separates it from raw-data siblings like top_sources and get_timeseries. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

"Use this to build and then execute a marketing plan" gives a clear situational trigger and even hints at downstream execution (e.g. the suggested tracked link, tying to create_tracked_link). No when-not-to-use condition or explicit alternative is offered, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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