get_time_series

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the 0-100 value limit, volume being provided only when available, the one-keyword-one-source constraint, and specific quota/rate-limit handling instructions. 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, data shape, use cases, exclusions with alternatives, and quota behavior. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by routing and operational guidance.

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 2 required parameters, full schema documentation, presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the agent needs to call the tool correctly, including edge-case handling for rate limits and quota exhaustion.

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 keyword and source parameters are documented in detail, including source-specific formats. The description restates the one-keyword/one-source constraint but does not materially add parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a full historical series for one keyword and one source, with a data range (0-100 values plus volume when available). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_top_trends and get_growth for adjacent use cases, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: charting or custom math. It also states when not to use it (live trending boards) and names the sibling alternative (get_top_trends), and routes growth questions to get_growth. This is direct, actionable usage routing.

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