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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that it reports both running state and bytes captured, which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about behavior when no capture is active.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause earns its place by naming the resource and the two pieces of returned data.

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 trivial one-param read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (running state, byte count). It stops short of describing the no-active-capture case, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Single parameter 'udid' with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Report') and resource ('active native packet capture on an iOS device') plus what the report contains. The 'native packet capture' wording helps distinguish it from ios_traffic_status and ios_safari_capture_network, though it doesn't name those siblings outright.

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 through the 'status' framing — check whether a capture is running — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to ios_pcap_start/ios_pcap_stop as the alternatives. Adequate but leaves 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.