get_growth

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: rate-limit/quota handling, the 0-100 value scale, absolute volume when available, and source-specific interpretation. No contradiction exists.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers windows, value scale, sibling routing, source caveats, and rate-limit response. Every sentence contributes distinct information without 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?

With an output schema present and safety annotations provided, the description supplies the remaining essential context: growth semantics, preset windows, value scaling, source nuances, and how to respond on rate limits. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly appears missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sources, keyword formats, and growth windows. The description still adds value by emphasizing that app downloads/app rankings require an Android bundle ID and are not the App Store/Google Play live boards, but most parameter meaning already lives in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_time_series and get_top_trends, so an agent can distinguish it from both siblings.

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 says 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions', giving a clear routing rule. It also clarifies that app downloads and app rankings are not the live boards on get_top_trends, preventing a common misuse.

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