get_growth

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: values are on a 0-100 scale, absolute volume is included when available, and the tool may hit rate limits requiring a user-facing plan-limit message.

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 front-loaded: the core behavior appears first, followed by data-scale context, sibling differentiation, and error handling. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without redundancy.

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?

For a read-only growth tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the essential context: behavior, output scale, source caveats, sibling relationships, and rate-limit handling. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lightly reinforces the preset-window concept and the Android bundle ID requirement for app sources, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema detail.

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 further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying to prefer it over get_time_series for growth questions and clarifying 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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer this over get_time_series for growth questions.' It also warns that app downloads/app rankings sources should not be confused with get_top_trends, and instructs the agent on how to handle rate limits or quota exhaustion.

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