Query crash / app-freeze metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the normalised row shape, the degraded fallback response behavior when the gateway rejects the body, and the community-verified/schema-drift warning.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then fallback behavior then reliability caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 naming the return fields {day, version, count, users, rate}, and it flags the unreliable-response path. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the sibling-selection gap and absence of pagination/date-range default semantics leave a small hole.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters including enums and date formats. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting the dimension-driven row shape, so 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 (Query) and resource (AGC APM crash/app-freeze metrics) and names the exact endpoint, plus the shape of returned rows. An agent can distinguish this metric-query tool from siblings like agc_crash_summary without opening either schema.

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?

Provides one real routing hint: if the gateway rejects the body shape, fall back to agc_request to adjust fields. However, it never states when to choose this tool versus agc_crash_summary or agc_report_trend, which is the primary selection ambiguity for an agent.

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