get_growth

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, so the description supplements rather than repeats them. It discloses the 0-100 value scale, that absolute volume appears when available, that growth windows are fixed presets, and the plan-limit behavior on throttling—useful behavioral context beyond 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 capability and each subsequent sentence adds distinct operational value (value scale, sibling choice, source caveat, rate-limit behavior). It is tight for the amount of guidance it delivers.

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?

With output schema present, return-value details do not need to be in the description. The description covers sibling differentiation, source/keyword caveats, value semantics, and error handling, so an agent has all behavioral context needed to invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents source values, keyword formats, and percent_growth presets fully. The description mostly restates these constraints (preset strings, Android bundle ID) rather than adding new parameter-level details; the 0-100 scale is output behavior, not parameter semantics.

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-driven statement: 'Point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources.' It also disambiguates from siblings by saying to prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying that app sources here are not the App Store/Google Play 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 explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions' and explicitly carves out get_top_trends for app-store live boards. It also adds an operational rule for rate-limit/quota errors, telling the agent to inform the user their plan limit is reached.

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