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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool reports, that counters are live, and that a non-matching route yields mocked: 0. 'Report' also implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly guarantee no side effects.

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 with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose and outputs, and the second provides operational guidance. Every clause adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the key returned dimensions: armed status, page target, active routes, and the counter categories (paused/mocked/aborted/passedThrough/errors). It could add details about the exact response shape or behavior when interception is not armed, but for a single-parameter status tool this is nearly complete.

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 100% and the sole parameter udid is already documented as 'Device id (Android serial or iOS UDID)'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed since the schema fully covers the single parameter.

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 names the exact resource (Safari/WKWebView interception), then lists what is reported: armed state, page target, active routes, and hit counters. This clearly distinguishes it from android_devtools_mock_status and webpage_mock_status by platform, and from mock_list tools by the status/counter focus.

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 final sentence gives an explicit use case: check the hit counters to confirm a mock is actually firing, with the concrete 'mocked: 0' signal for a route that never matches. It does not spell out when to prefer this over ios_safari_mock_list, but the status-checking intent is clear.

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