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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals this is a read-only fetch (it returns parsed metadata + raw content), which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose what 'raw content' entails, whether the report is returned as a string or structured object, size/truncation behavior, or failure states (e.g., what happens if the id is invalid). The one behavioral note ('No automation session required') is useful but thin coverage for an unannotated tool.

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?

Single well-formed sentence that packs the core purpose, the id sourcing caveat, and the session requirement note. Zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary function.

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 simple 2-parameter, no-output-schema fetch tool, the description covers the essential workflow. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only disclosure mechanism, and it leaves the return format, failure behavior, and whether udid is needed when no session is active somewhat under-specified. Adequate for a straightforward read tool but could add return-format hints given the lack of an output schema.

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% with both parameters ('udid' and 'id') documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description references how to obtain the id ('from ios_crash_analytics'), which adds meaningful context for the 'id' parameter beyond the schema's plain 'Crash report id (file name)' phrasing. No additional detail is added for 'udid', so it's an adequate but not exceptional contribution given full schema coverage.

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 states the tool returns 'Full parsed metadata + raw content of one crash report' with a clear verb+resource structure and qualifies that it's 'by id from ios_crash_analytics'. It distinguishes itself from ios_crash_analytics (which lists multiple) and ios_crash_list. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling ios_crash_detail's platform counterpart beyond being iOS-specific.

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 provides clear context: retrieves a single crash report 'by id from ios_crash_analytics', which tells the agent the source of the id. It also notes 'No automation session required,' clarifying an important precondition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., ios_crash_symbolicate for symbolicating), though the workflow implication is reasonably clear.

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