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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that no automation session is required and by characterizing the payload as full metadata plus raw content, though it says nothing about payload size or truncation for potentially large raw crash files.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the payload, the keying parameter, and its source, followed by a short session-requirement clause. Zero waste and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return content ('full parsed metadata + raw content') and covers the session requirement and safety profile via annotations. It is nearly complete; only edge details like payload size limits or behavior on an unknown id are absent.

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% and both parameters (id, udid) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the id's provenance ('by id from ios_crash_analytics') but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific resource ('one crash report') and what it returns ('full parsed metadata + raw content'), and points to the sibling that produces the id (ios_crash_analytics). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from ios_crash_symbolicate, which is the nearest ambiguous alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns the id comes from ios_crash_analytics and that no automation session is needed, which is genuinely useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-symbolicate guidance or statement of prerequisites beyond the session note.

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