Sempa They made a list of specific third party libraries they decided are trackers. The decision is quite dubious in some cases. It doesn't detect privacy invasive code in general, only a list of specific libraries they taught it to detect. Not all the libraries they mark as supposedly being trackers are truly privacy invasive and the app may make the functionality optional. It's very misleading and is not a good way to evaluate the overall privacy of apps. It can tell you if an app has a specific library that's on their list which you don't want, but not if an app is private at all.
Their permission listing is highly misleading and inaccurate. It shows all the low-level permissions both defined by the OS itself and ones which only have meaning defined by apps themselves. Most of these are grouped into the standard runtime permission toggles which are disabled by default, special access permission controls (disabled by default other than Wi-Fi control, which isn't actually invasive), case-by-case requests (such as Bluetooth pairing requests) and the battery usage setting (Restricted vs. default Optimized vs. Unrestricted). The OS doesn't actually grant most of them to apps at install time, and there's control over when an app can run via the battery usage setting. Many people are greatly misled about how things work by their permission listing. The "All permissions" page within the OS is misleading too, but at least it only shows OS defined permissions with a meaning in the OS and it groups the ones covered by runtime permission toggles together. It unfortunately doesn't group the ones covered by special access permissions or the battery usage toggle. We could improve it to make it less misleading.