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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses return contents, that x-loutre-* headers are honoured, that latency is not awaited but reported as delayMs, and that writes are conditionally persisted. It omits auth/permission behavior and error semantics, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero preamble; the core call-and-return contract is front-loaded and GraphQL/persistence caveats follow. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return values, header semantics, GraphQL usage, and write persistence. Missing auth context (though schema covers accessKey/ownerToken) and error/failure behavior are the remaining gaps.

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 86%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by specifying the GraphQL body shape ({query, variables}) for POST, and by naming the honoured x-loutre-* headers that map to the headers parameter. This is substantive parameter-level guidance not present in the schema.

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 and resource ('Call a route of the mock like an HTTP client would') plus the return shape (status, x-loutre-* headers, body). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling replay_request, which is the one tool whose purpose could plausibly overlap.

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?

Usage is implied by description: it explains GraphQL invocation via POST and that writes persist when persistent state is on. But it never says when to prefer this over siblings like replay_request or get_requests, nor any exclusions or prerequisites for calling it.

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