play_get_metric_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful behavioral context by noting that 'Redundant Protobuf metadata is stripped' and implies read-only behavior through 'Query.' However, it does not mention authentication needs, data granularity limits, error behavior, or what exactly the returned trend/daily-average structure looks like.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: it immediately states what the tool does, then adds a meaningful output-efficiency note. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name appears.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about the returned data. 'Trends and daily averages' gives a high-level idea, but an agent still cannot know the response shape, units, date range behavior beyond the days parameter, or whether results are aggregated per version code. The callable parameters are documented, but the overall context is incomplete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it names the metric categories, but the schema already provides equivalent detail for each enum value and parameter.

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 clearly states the operation ('Query trends and daily averages') and the specific resource types: ANR rate, slow cold start rate, and crash rate. This distinguishes it from generic reporting tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from nearby siblings like play_get_top_anr_summary.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as play_get_top_anr_summary or play_list_anomalies. The 'Token-efficient Metrics' tag hints at a possible use case but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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