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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the meaning of each counter category and the diagnostic insight that a non-matching route reports mocked: 0. It does not discuss error states of the status call itself, keeping it at a 4.

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, zero filler, and the enumeration of reported fields is front-loaded ahead of the diagnostic tip. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: the armed flag, target, routes, and named counter values. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% param coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

There is a single parameter (udid) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail about the device id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is reported: armed state, attached page target, active routes, and hit counters. This is far more informative than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as android_devtools_mock_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete diagnostic condition for using the tool: 'Check the counters to confirm a mock is actually firing — a route that never matches shows mocked: 0.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It names no alternative or exclusion (e.g., vs. mock_list or mock_add), so it is not a full 5.

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