query_crash_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: daily aggregation in America/Los_Angeles, ~1-day data lag, and omission of slices with too few users. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but that is implied for a query tool. The disclosed traits add value beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, lists metrics, notes optional dimensions, and adds crucial data freshness/aggregation context. 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?

Given no output schema and a moderately complex query tool (8 params, 2 required), the description covers the essential context: what metrics are fetched, how data is aggregated and delayed, and that dimensions are optional. It sufficiently prepares an agent to use the tool without ambiguity.

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% with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the two default metrics (crashRate and userPerceivedCrashRate) and their definitions, which the schema does not. It also clarifies that dimensions are optional, reinforcing the schema's examples. This is a modest but meaningful addition.

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 identifies the tool as querying crash rate metrics (crashRate and userPerceivedCrashRate) from Android Vitals, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_anr_rate and query_slow_start_rate which target different metrics. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 crash-rate queries and mentions optional breakdowns (version code, device model, country), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Since sibling tools are clearly for different metrics, the context is inferrable but not overt.

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