get_growth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond these: values are on a 0-100 scale, absolute volume is included when available, windows are preset strings, and rate-limit/quota failures should be reported as a plan limit reached. 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by output-scale details, sibling preference, source clarification, and error handling. It is slightly long and some points duplicate schema content, but every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage or behavior.

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, the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers what the tool does, when to choose it over siblings, source constraints, output scaling, and the rate-limit failure mode. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is 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?

The input schema already provides rich documentation: source lists valid values and comma-separated behavior, keyword specifies per-source formats, and percent_growth enumerates all preset windows. The description reinforces the preset-window idea and Android bundle ID requirement but adds little genuinely new parameter information beyond what the schema already covers.

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 explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings 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 unique purpose immediately clear.

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 direct guidance: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions' and clarifies that app downloads/app rankings sources are not the App Store/Google Play live boards on get_top_trends. It also tells the agent what to do on rate limiting or quota exhaustion, which is practical usage guidance.

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