Get Crashes Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the data comes from the bulk report and represents raw daily counts, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention any behavioral aspects like data availability, permission requirements, or how the output is shaped beyond what the output schema already provides.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and the follow-up sentences earn their place by resolving the most likely confusion with query_vitals. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 the complete input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making context. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly enumerate the supported dimension values or state what 'one month' means relative to the month parameter, but the schema already handles those details. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and distinguish it from siblings.

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 schema fully documents package_name, month, and dimension. The description reinforces that the report covers one month and distinguishes the tool's semantic framing, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the load.

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 and resource: it returns daily crash and ANR counts for a one-month period. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from query_vitals, which is the closest sibling, by contrasting raw daily counts with user-weighted rates. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly names query_vitals as the alternative and tells the agent when to use it instead: 'Use query_vitals to judge release health.' It also explains the differentiator—raw daily counts from the bulk report versus weighted rates from the Reporting API—so an agent can route between the two correctly.

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