Search error reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful granularity cue that results are individual reports containing stack traces, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or filter semantics that matter for a search endpoint.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it names the action, the data, and the source API method compactly. It is efficient, though it could spend one more clause on the sibling distinction or paging.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return shape, and it partially does so (individual reports with stack traces). However, for a paginated search tool with two undocumented paging parameters and no guidance against the sibling search endpoint, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 coverage is only 50%: filter and package_name are documented in the schema, while page_size and page_token are not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented paging parameters.

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 verb (Searches) and resource (individual crash/ANR reports with stack traces), plus the underlying Reporting API method. This implicitly separates it from the sibling search_error_issues (reports vs issues), but the differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely named sibling search_error_issues, nor any prerequisites (e.g., package scope, filter syntax). The agent must guess which of the two search endpoints fits a given question.

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