get_time_series

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: the series is limited to 0-100 values, volume is included 'when available,' and there is a clear instruction on how to handle rate limits or quota exhaustion. 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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines output, the second gives usage context and alternatives, and the third provides error-handling behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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, a fully self-documenting source parameter schema, and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It even includes quota/rate-limit handling, which is often 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the source parameter already carries extensive, source-specific validation guidance. The description adds only the general constraint of 'one keyword and one source,' which is helpful but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: 'Full historical series for one keyword and one source (0-100 values, plus volume when available).' It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming get_top_trends and get_growth, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for charting or custom math.' It also provides exclusions: 'Not for live trending boards (use get_top_trends)' and 'For most growth questions, use get_growth.' The rate-limit handling instruction adds operational guidance.

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