Get Installs Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful scope details such as 'one month' and the included metric categories, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'active-device', access permissions, or data freshness. The read-only nature is implied by the report context but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase earns its place by conveying a meaningful scope: daily versus active-device metrics, the metric types, and the time window.

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 reporting tool, the description covers the core metric categories and the one-month constraint, while the input and output schemas cover invocation details. It is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool for install/uninstall/upgrade reporting, though it would be more complete with explicit usage comparisons against other report tools.

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?

All three parameters are already fully described in the schema, so the description adds little parameter-level value. Its mention of 'one month' aligns with the month parameter, but otherwise it relies on the schema's existing documentation, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource (the installs report) and states its exact metric contents: daily and active-device installs, uninstalls, and upgrades over a one-month window. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling reporting tools such as get_ratings_report, get_crashes_report, and get_earnings_report.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling reporting tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer the intended use case solely from the metric names and the tool name.

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