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

Annotations only declare a safe read; the description adds genuine operational context: symbol/PDB dependency determines whether function names appear, reports expire after 30 days, stacks are truncated to 64 frames, and the newest report with a stack is the one used. These are caveats an agent could not obtain from annotations or schema.

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?

Return contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by caveats ordered by likelihood of affecting interpretation (symbols, retention, frame cap). It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the stack-ordering detail is slightly over-explained.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return shape, and it does so thoroughly — including frame ordering, blamed flags, and graceful degradation when symbols or reports are missing. An agent knows what a successful and an empty-ish response look like.

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%, with both appId and failureHash documented and cross-referenced to list_apps and list_crashes. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('One crash or hang of an app, read from Partner Center') and enumerates the contents returned. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list_crashes, which is positioned as the source of the failureHash rather than a duplicate.

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 schema notes say failureHash comes from list_crashes and appId from list_apps, so the discovery-then-fetch workflow is inferable but never spelled out in the description. There is no explicit when-not guidance, though the 30-day retention note effectively warns when this tool returns nothing.

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