apps__beta_feedback_crash_submissions__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the endpoint. However, there is no contradiction, and the annotations cover the key behavioral traits well, so a 4 is appropriate (the description adds the endpoint reference but doesn't need to repeat annotations).

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose and includes the endpoint URL. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every part earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool has 13 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description is reasonably complete in conveying the core action. However, with no output schema, mentioning the return format or pagination behavior would improve completeness for an agent invoking this tool without prior knowledge. Still, the high schema coverage and annotations carry much of the burden.

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 any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but does not exceed expectations.

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 lists beta feedback crash submissions belonging to an app, using a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('beta feedback crash submissions'), and the scope ('belonging to an app'). It also includes the REST endpoint for clarity. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'apps__beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__list' and 'beta_feedback_crash_submissions__get'.

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 implies this tool is for listing crash submissions tied to an app, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'beta_feedback_crash_submissions__get' for a single item, or filtering via parameters). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations are given, which is a gap given the rich sibling set.

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