Summarise crash / app-freeze metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that results are pre-aggregated into total, week-over-week comparison, worst days, top versions and a daily series. It omits any note about authentication requirements or query cost/limits, which would be the remaining useful disclosures.

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 with the action first and the output list after; no filler or repetition. The colon-separated enumeration is dense but readable.

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 present, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (total, WoW, worst days, versions, daily series). Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but default date behavior and auth expectations are left unstated for a 7-parameter tool.

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%, so every parameter including enums (kind, site, dimension) is already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a faint hint about a 7-day comparison window (implying date defaults), but does not explain the interaction between startDate/endDate and the WoW framing.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Query crash or app-freeze metrics and summarise') and enumerates the exact outputs (total, WoW, worst days, top versions, daily series), which is far more informative than the title alone. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like agc_crash_metric or agc_report_trend, so an agent must infer the boundary from the word 'summarise'.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over agc_crash_metric, agc_report_trend, or agc_daily_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent hints are the schema defaults ('default crash', default site), which the description doesn't restate.

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