get_growth

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the 0-100 value scale, absolute volume 'when available,' preset growth windows, and the correct user-facing action when rate limits or quotas are hit — none of which are in the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds windows, output scale, sibling disambiguation, and error handling in logical order. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers selection criteria, source caveats, value semantics, and quota/rate-limit behavior, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's remarks about preset windows and Android bundle IDs largely restate schema content rather than adding new parameter-level semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from both siblings by recommending it over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying that app downloads/rankings are not the live boards on get_top_trends.

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?

It gives direct selection guidance: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions.' It also clarifies a not-this case by stating app downloads/rankings are keyword sources, not get_top_trends live boards, and provides explicit handling for rate limits or quota exhaustion.

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