search_error_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains issues are grouped/deduplicated, describes the key fields (errorReportCount, distinctUsers, affected versions, issueUri), and provides a pointer to the sibling for deeper detail. It omits potential edge cases like pagination or error behavior, but the read-only search nature is clear.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence defines the tool, the second adds valuable output context and a workflow hint. Perfectly sized.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the response fields and linking to the sibling tool for drill-down. It covers the essential context for an agent to select and use the tool effectively, with minor gaps around default filter behavior not being mentioned.

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 does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on the output structure and sibling usage, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a distinct resource ('grouped crash/ANR issues for an app'), explicitly explaining the deduplication semantics. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool `search_error_reports` by describing the aggregation layer and how it relates to individual reports.

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 provides a clear workflow: use this tool to find issues, then use `search_error_reports` with the issue name to read stack traces. This names an alternative tool and gives an example of when to use it, though it does not cover all sibling comparisons (e.g., `query_crash_rate`).

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