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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does signal a read operation and describes the payload contents (rules, state, webhooks), which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, what happens when the ID doesn't exist, or whether the response is large/paginated.

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, front-loaded with the core action and contents, followed by the key identifier guidance. No filler, though the capitalized "PREFERRED:" fragment reads slightly awkwardly.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does compensate by enumerating the returned fields. Still, for a tool with zero annotations and an overlapping sibling, it omits error behavior and the distinction from get_mock_by_slug, leaving an agent with gaps at selection time.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the slugId preference and the projectId-only-with-mockId rule. The description restates that preference without adding syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource (get full detail of a single mock endpoint) and enumerates what's returned: rules, stateful config, webhook settings, slugId, description. It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_mock_by_slug, which appears to overlap heavily given the slugId emphasis.

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 description advises supplying slugId rather than mockId/projectId, which is argument-level guidance rather than usage guidance. It gives no condition for choosing this tool over get_mock_by_slug or list_mocks/search_mocks, and no when-not-to-use cases.

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