get_growth

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: values are on a 0-100 scale with absolute volume when available, and the agent should tell the user their plan limit is reached on rate limiting or quota exhaustion. These details are not present in the structured fields and do not contradict the 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 compact and every sentence earns its place: core operation, output scale, sibling preference, app-source caveat, and rate-limit handling. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids redundant phrasing.

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 a detailed input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps: tool selection, output scale, source disambiguation, and error behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly, including valid sources, keyword formatting rules per source, and every preset growth window. The description references preset windows and Android bundle IDs but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Point-to-point growth for a keyword on one or more sources.' It also names sibling tools to disambiguate itself, stating it is preferred over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying that app 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?

It gives an explicit selection rule: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions.' It also warns against confusing app downloads/app rankings with get_top_trends live boards, and specifies how to handle rate limits or quota exhaustion. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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