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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only.' It goes beyond annotations by disclosing that signatures are code-derived (never raw messages) and that no user value is exposed, plus the fallback note for missing credentials or no crashes. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the safety flag.

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 a single dense sentence with a clear subject, then a follow-up on privacy and a note. It packs a lot of specifics without redundancy, though it could be slightly more streamlined. The front-loading of the main content is effective.

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 tool's complexity (multiple fields, joins, fallback behavior) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the return structure, ordering, privacy guarantees, and edge cases. It does not explicitly describe the exact JSON shape, but that is not required when no output schema exists. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 covers both parameters (install_id and read_token) with full descriptions, so the schema already documents them. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance (e.g., where to find the token or how to format it), but since schema coverage is 100%, the 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 specifies a concrete resource ('crash classes this app recorded') and details the exact fields returned (error name, redacted top frame, occurrence bucket, relatedRules), along with the ordering ('newest first') and the join with the Stability summary. It is unmistakably a read-only crash information tool and clearly distinct from siblings like boosthis_full_stack_trace, even without naming them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It describes what the tool returns, but it does not mention alternatives (e.g., full_stack_trace for deeper stack detail) or any conditions that would select this tool over others. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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