get_growth

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: point-to-point window comparisons, a 0-100 normalized scale plus absolute volume when available, and a required user-facing response when rate limits or monthly quota are exhausted. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 every sentence earns its place: core definition, output scale, routing preference, source ambiguity warning, and quota behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and keeps ancillary guidance brief, avoiding redundant schema restatement.

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 a rich input schema, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description does not need to explain return values. It completes the remaining operational picture by defining the growth window concept, the output scale, cross-tool routing, and rate-limit behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke and respond 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 fully documents source, keyword, and percent_growth semantics. The description mostly restates that windows are preset strings and that app downloads/app rankings use Android bundle IDs, which is already in the schema. Therefore it adds little new parameter-level meaning, so the 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 states a specific operation: point-to-point growth for a keyword across one or more sources, using preset time windows. It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_time_series and get_top_trends by naming the exact confusion points. This gives an agent a clear, distinguishing purpose.

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?

'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions' is an explicit routing rule between sibling tools. It also clarifies that app downloads/app rankings are keyword sources, not the live boards on get_top_trends, preventing a likely mis-selection. The rate-limit/quota instruction adds an operational when-to-act condition.

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