google_list_vitals_anomalies

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read, but it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, how many anomalies are returned, or what the response looks like, despite maxResults allowing 1-1000.

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 that defines the resource and parenthetical detail efficiently. No padding, though the brevity leaves gaps.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should explain returns and filter semantics; it gives only a terse hint of return fields and no filter guidance. For a tool with three siblings in the vitals space, it is under-specified.

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 67%, below the 80% baseline, so the description should compensate but does not. The phrase 'affected metric and dimensions' describes output rather than explaining the filter syntax (activeBetween) or the maxResults cap.

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 (List) and resource (anomalies Google detected in Android vitals) and even clarifies what an anomaly is (sudden crash/ANR spikes). It is clear on its own, but never distinguishes itself from vitals siblings like google_query_vitals or google_search_vitals_error_issues.

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 versus google_query_vitals, google_search_vitals_error_issues, or google_search_vitals_error_reports. An agent must infer from the name alone which vitals tool answers which question.

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