Android Permission Advisor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable lookup; the description correctly does not contradict that. It adds the useful fact that an empty query lists all permissions and that 'runtime pattern' is a magic query term. It still says nothing about the shape/volume of the returned data, which matters since there is no output 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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger immediately after; nothing is padded. The final clause largely duplicates what the parameter schema already says, a minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 simple two-parameter reference lookup with a full read-only annotation set, the description covers purpose, trigger, and query modes adequately. The remaining gap is the absence of any hint about return contents/format, which is more notable because no output schema exists to cover 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'leave empty to list all' and 'runtime pattern' behaviors. The description restates those same facts rather than adding format, case-sensitivity, or validity guidance, so it earns the baseline 3 with no uplift.

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?

States a specific resource (Android permission reference) and enumerates exactly what it returns: type, runtime-request need, Play restrictions, and request pattern. That is far more concrete than a generic 'get info' tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling android_play_policy_advisor, which plausibly covers overlapping Play-restriction territory.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Call before adding <uses-permission>.' That tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. It does not name alternatives or state when another sibling (e.g. android_play_policy_advisor) is the better pick, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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