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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the state-change profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the helper service stops pushing mocked fixes and apps fall back to the real GPS/network provider, explaining the observable consequence. It does not cover failure modes (no active mock, unknown UDID).

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 waste, with the core action front-loaded and the sibling reference placed where a routing agent will see it immediately.

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 single-parameter, annotation-rich tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, effect, and the sibling relationship. Only edge-case behavior (calling when no mock is active, error response) is left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter (udid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Stop) plus resource (mock GPS) and scope (Android device), then explicitly names its counterpart device_set_location. An agent can distinguish it from device_set_location, device_get_location, and device_clear_app_data without opening any 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?

The counterpart framing to device_set_location clearly implies when to call it (after location mocking is no longer needed), and it implicitly routes the agent to device_set_location for the inverse action. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite (e.g., mock must be active) is given.

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