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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no mutation, and the description reinforces read-only behavior with 'List'. It also explains the prerequisite and output characteristics, though it does not explicitly mention lack of side effects or permission requirements beyond project context.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, followed by useful details about sorting, returned fields, and the prerequisite.

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?

Given the absent output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields (path pattern, method, status code, active status), sorting behavior, pagination, and the required context setup. This is complete for an agent to decide when to call 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?

The schema provides 100% parameter coverage, and the description adds useful semantic context by mentioning pagination (aligning with skip/take) and the overall purpose of mockServerId. It does not repeat schema descriptions, but the added context is sufficient.

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 clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('mock rules'), and the scope ('for a mock server'), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_mock_rule_diagnostics and list_smart_mock_matching_rules by focusing on the core mock rule list.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires project context (call set_context first)' and describes pagination, sorting order, and returned fields, giving concrete guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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