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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the data comes from `top` and which metrics are captured, but says nothing about sampling cost, latency, or how the single snapshot relates to the record_start/record_stop flow.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading what the tool returns before the parameter modes. No filler, though the escaped '%%' is a minor readability blemish.

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 snapshot tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the returned metrics (CPU %, memory MB) and the two scoping modes, and annotations cover safety. Missing only a note on return shape (e.g., listing format) to be fully self-sufficient.

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 all three parameters are already documented; the baseline is 3. The description adds mild reinforcement by restating that topN ranks by CPU and pkg selects a single app, but no syntax, default, or edge-case detail 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 names a specific verb ('Snapshot'), the exact resource measured (per-process CPU % and memory in MB), the platform (Android) and the mechanism (`top`). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like android_performance_record_start/stop or android_fps, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

It clarifies the two operational modes ('Top-N by CPU, or one app via pkg'), which implies when to use each parameter, but gives no when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to alternative tools such as the recording start/stop pair for continuous profiling.

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