get_growth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: values are on a 0-100 scale, absolute volume is included when available, and rate-limit/quota exhaustion should be reported to the user as a plan-limit message. No contradiction with 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 purpose and each sentence earns its place. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because some details repeat the schema, and 'the other listed periods' is vague, but overall it is well-structured and compact.

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 detailed input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the needed selection guidance, source caveats, Android bundle ID clarification, and rate-limit handling. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly and distinguish it from siblings.

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 already documents sources, keyword formats per source, and the full preset window list. The description mostly restates schema content rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific operation: 'Point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools by saying to prefer it over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying that app download/ranking sources are not the 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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions.' It also tells agents when this tool is not appropriate by stating that app downloads/rankings are not the App Store / Google Play live boards from get_top_trends, providing a clear exclusion.

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