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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It is transparent about the output at a high level, explicitly states that telemetry and in-house automation processes are excluded from the data, and clarifies the session requirement. A slightly fuller statement of return shape or pagination would be possible, but nothing important is hidden.

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 definition is three focused sentences with the main function first, followed by exclusions and a routing pointer. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description explains what analytics are returned, what data is excluded, and how to get the full log. It is slightly incomplete in not contrasting with ios_crash_list, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% for the single param, and 'udid' is already documented as the iOS device UDID. The description adds only implicit context by mentioning an iOS device, which is enough for baseline but not a meaningful addition 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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'List crash reports on an iOS device' and immediately enumerates the analytics dimensions (total, per-app, per exception type, per-day timeline). It distinguishes itself from the likely sibling ios_crash_list by emphasizing aggregate analytics and from ios_crash_detail by pointing to it for full logs.

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 clear guidance to use ios_crash_detail with a returned crash id for the full log and notes that no automation session is required, removing a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over ios_crash_list for raw crash lists, but the aggregate-analytics framing makes the choice largely implicit.

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