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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the auth requirement ('API token required') and the shape of returned fields. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether all mocks or only active ones are returned, which matters for a list operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb and scope first, then the auth caveat, then the returned fields. Every clause adds information and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, what comes back, and the auth prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain around result ordering and result-set boundaries.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs interpretation and the description does not misrepresent any inputs.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List ... mocks') scoped to 'the connected account's', plus the fields returned (URL, routes, expiry). It is clearly distinguishable from get_mock (single item) by the implicit 'all mocks' scope, though no sibling is named.

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: use it to enumerate the account's mocks, and an API token is required. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_mock or how this differs from other read tools like get_requests, leaving the routing to inference.

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