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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a meaningful constraint (needs 2+ jobs, all versions of the same app, sorted by version code), but says nothing about failure when jobs are not the same app or not completed, or about output shape beyond ordering.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action (build a version timeline) and the scope/ordering. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input constraint is captured in the schema. The description is adequate for invoking the tool; only preconditions like jobs needing to be completed and for the same app could be surfaced more prominently.

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 there is a single documented parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same 2+ jobs / same-app / sorted-by-version-code constraints without adding new semantics, which is the correct baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Build a version timeline"), names the required inputs (2+ apk-teardown jobs), and the output ordering (sorted by version code). It is clearly distinct from siblings like apk_teardown_diff or apk_teardown_compare_ownership, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies the usage context (you need 2 or more apk-teardown jobs) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus apk_teardown_diff, apk_teardown_compare_ownership, or apk_teardown_job_status. The agent must infer the choice from the sibling names.

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