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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false safety, and the description adds substantial operational context beyond them: mechanism (atos, host binaries), dSYM matching by Mach-O UUID, the fallback of returning unresolvable frames as-is, and the default of symbolicating only the faulting thread.

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?

Four dense sentences, each front-loading a distinct fact (action, resolution paths, failure fallback, thread default) with no redundant restatement of the name or title. Nothing is wasted.

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 compensates by describing return behavior (unresolvable frames returned as-is, only faulting thread by default). Combined with rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly, including the environmental prerequisites for success.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how dsymPath is matched (by Mach-O UUID), that allThreads defaults to faulting-thread-only, and that id is a crash file name from ios_crash_analytics. This meaningfully enriches the schema's terse parameter docs.

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 verb+resource ('Symbolicate a crash report') and immediately names the source of the input id ('by id from ios_crash_analytics'), which no sibling duplicates. It also clarifies the transformation performed (imageName+offset -> symbol+offset(file:line)), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 establishes clear prerequisites: app frames only resolve with a dsymPath, system frames need prepared DeviceSupport, and the id must come from ios_crash_analytics. It doesn't name an alternative tool or when-not-to-use case, but no sibling performs symbolication, so the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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