get_time_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the 0-100 value range, optional volume inclusion, and rate-limit/quota behavior with a concrete user-facing instruction. Nothing contradicts 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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, then gives usage context, sibling routing, and rate-limit handling. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The combination of description, annotations, rich schema, and output schema fully equips an agent to select, invoke, and handle results. It covers scope, alternatives, result shape, and quota behavior with no meaningful gap.

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% and the schema itself thoroughly documents both parameters, including valid sources and per-source keyword formats. The description only reinforces 'one keyword and one source' without adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 'Full historical series for one keyword and one source', which names a specific resource and scope. It also actively distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Not for live...' and 'use get_growth', so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

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 explicitly states when this tool is appropriate ('Use for charting or custom math') and when it is not, naming the alternatives get_top_trends and get_growth. This is direct, unambiguous routing guidance.

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