query_anr_rate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses daily aggregation in America/Los_Angeles and a ~1 day lag, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only or mention any rate limits or error conditions. Given that it is a query tool, these details are useful but not critical.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the query and optional breakdowns, the second covers aggregation and lag. No wasted words.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what metrics, the aggregation period and location, and data lag. It does not describe the return format, but for a query tool that is often implied. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and when to use it.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond naming the default metrics and some example dimensions, which is redundant with the schema. It does not provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema has.

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 it queries ANR rate from Android vitals, specifically naming the metrics anrRate and userPerceivedAnrRate, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like query_crash_rate by focusing on ANR. This meets the standard of a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explains the optional breakdowns (by version code, device model, country) and mentions data aggregation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance, though the context of sibling tools implies it is for ANR metrics.

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