get_growth

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: values are on a 0-100 scale, absolute volume is included when available, windows are preset strings, and rate-limited or quota-exhausted requests should be communicated to the user as a plan limit. This goes well beyond the structured 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 dense but efficient: it starts with the core operation, then adds output semantics, sibling guidance, source caveats, and error handling. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or tautology.

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 output schema exists, return-value details are not needed in the description. The description covers the key invocation decisions: which sibling to prefer, source semantics, window presets, output scale, and rate-limit behavior. An agent has enough context to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, with detailed keyword and source descriptions and the full list of preset windows in the schema. The description reinforces key ideas like comma-separated sources and Android bundle IDs for app sources, but it does not materially add parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying to prefer it over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying that app sources are not the live boards on get_top_trends. This makes the tool's purpose clear and separable from its 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions.' It also clarifies what this tool is not for by distinguishing app downloads/app rankings from get_top_trends live boards. The rate-limit instruction adds actionable guidance for handling failed calls.

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