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

The readOnlyHint annotation indicates the tool does not modify state, and the description confirms that it only tests and returns results. No side effects are mentioned, and there is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it states the action, the output, the use case, and a prerequisite in just two sentences. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while conveying all essential information.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (matching rule and generated value) and mentions the required project context. It does not provide details about output structure or edge cases (e.g., no match), but given the lack of an output schema, the information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 clear descriptions for all four parameters with examples (fieldName, schemaType, mockServerId, schemaFormat), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Test' and the resource 'Smart Mock matching', and explicitly mentions that it returns the matching rule and generated value. It also distinguishes its purpose by noting it is useful for verifying configuration before generating rules.

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 provides a specific use case ('verifying Smart Mock configuration before generating rules') and a prerequisite ('Requires project context (call set_context first)'). It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like preview_smart_mock or list_smart_mock_matching_rules, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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