google_search_vitals_error_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the return content (reportText stack trace, device and app version) and implies a read via 'fetch', but says nothing about permissions/scopes, sensitive-data handling, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema's pageToken conveys.

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 sentences with zero filler; the return payload is front-loaded and the cross-reference to the sibling follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 filtered-list tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields (stack trace, device, app version) does the heavy lifting and pagination is covered by schema. What's missing is auth-scope context and whether the reports contain PII, which matters for a crash-log tool.

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 83%, with filter syntax (AIP-160), date format, pageSize bounds and pageToken already documented. The description adds only the specific errorIssueId usage, which is a marginal supplement rather than compensation for any gap, so the 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 (fetch) and a precisely scoped resource (individual crash/ANR reports), which cleanly separates it from sibling google_search_vitals_error_issues (issue-level listing) and google_query_vitals (aggregated metrics). An agent can tell what it returns without opening the 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_issues as the source of errorIssueId, giving clear usage context. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., vs google_query_vitals for aggregates), so it is strong but not fully exclusionary.

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