query_error_counts

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It states the query returns rows always broken down by reportType (API requirement) and suggests adding issueId. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects or limitations (e.g., no filtering by user). The read-only nature is implied but not stated, so score is moderate.

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 purpose, then adds usage guidance. No fluff or repetitive details. Every sentence delivers necessary information efficiently.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, mandatory reportType breakdown, and a workflow for issue-level analysis. It does not describe the output structure (since there is no output schema), but it does clarify that rows are returned. Given the tool has 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is fairly complete, though it could mention the aggregation_period or pagination, but those are covered by the schema. Overall, adequate for a query 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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that reportType is always a dimension (mandatory) and how to use issueId to see issue-level volume, which goes beyond what the schema states. It also ties into the workflow with search_error_issues, enhancing parameter meaning.

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 queries absolute counts of error reports (crashes/ANRs) with specific metrics (errorReportCount, distinctUsers) over time. It distinguishes itself from sibling rate queries (e.g., query_crash_rate) by emphasizing absolute counts, and explicitly mentions the mandatory reportType breakdown, making it distinct.

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?

Provides clear guidance on how to get issue-level detail (add issueId) and directs to search_error_issues for details. It implies use when absolute counts are needed versus rate tools, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling rate queries or state when not to use it. Still effective workflow guidance.

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