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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses ordering (most recent first), the truncation behavior (body cut at 8 KB), the exact fields returned, and the replay id. It does not state read-only/side-effect profile, auth expectations, or how many requests are retained, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One tightly-packed sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited field list where each item earns its place. Slightly list-heavy but no filler.

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 exists, so the description must describe the return value — and it enumerates method, path, query, status, headers, body, answer source, latency, plus the id. Missing only limit/pagination behavior and retention/auth nuances, which are secondary for a read 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 coverage is 67%; slug and ownerToken are documented in the schema and need no repetition. However, the 'limit' parameter has no schema description and the description does not compensate by explaining its default, cap, or effect on the result set — the one place the description could have added unique value.

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 resource (requests received by the mock) and ordering (most recent first), which is clearly distinct from siblings like clear_requests, get_mock, or list_mocks. It never names an alternative explicitly, but an agent can identify the resource 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?

Usage is clearly implied: inspect captured traffic, and the note that each entry carries an id for replay_request establishes the workflow link to that sibling. There are no explicit exclusions (e.g. how this differs from clear_requests or when to prefer list_mocks), which keeps it below a 5.

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