google_search_vitals_error_issues

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavioral detail — the response includes counts, affected versions, cause and location, and results are ordered most frequent first — but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or pagination behavior (pageToken semantics live only in the schema).

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and result shape first, the sibling routing second. No filler, and the most actionable facts are front-loaded.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (counts, versions, cause, location), result ordering, and the follow-up tool for stack traces. The remaining gaps — pagination and filter composition — are covered by the schema, so it is nearly 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 71%, so the schema already documents filter syntax, date format, pageToken and packageName. The description adds only the ordering hint ('most frequent first'), which duplicates the orderBy default, and gives no guidance on constructing the AIP-160 filter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (crash and ANR clusters / error issues), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling that reads stack traces. An agent can distinguish it from google_search_vitals_error_reports without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to google_search_vitals_error_reports for stack traces, giving a clear condition for using the alternative. It doesn't state when not to use this tool (e.g., for other vitals metrics, which google_query_vitals covers), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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