play_search_error_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states sorting behavior and filter options but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, read-only nature, or pagination semantics beyond the schema. The absence of these operational details leaves significant gaps for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded ('Search Google Play error clusters'), and key filters are summarized succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters including pagination and enums, the description covers the main purpose and key filters but omits details like pagination usage, authentication, and return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at response structure; it only mentions sorting. The gaps are moderate given the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters (versionCode, user-perceived state, process state) and highlighting AIP-160 filter support, which maps to custom_filter. This complements the schema without redundancy, enhancing the agent's understanding of parameter relationships.

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 tool searches Google Play error clusters and enumerates the error types (CRASH, ANR, NON_FATAL). It mentions filtering and sorting, giving a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like play_get_error_reports or play_get_top_anr_summary, so differentiation is implicit via the term 'error clusters'.

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?

The description implies usage for searching error clusters with advanced AIP-160 filters, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings. It mentions 'full AIP-160 filter support' suggesting power users, but lacks exclusions or direct comparisons to other Play Console tools.

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