Answer a held request yourself

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals mutation, and the description adds meaningful context: it substitutes a held request's response rather than allowing network traffic, and remaining requests are released separately. It does not discuss permissions or side effects beyond the immediate request, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the prerequisite id source, then the intended workflow. No sentence is wasted.

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 four-parameter network interception tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, request-id provenance, and the follow-up sibling. It could more explicitly mention that interception must already be active, but the core workflow is adequately covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description repeats the requestId source and mentions using your own response body, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: fulfil one intercepted request with a custom response instead of letting it reach the network. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling network tools like browser_network_requests and browser_network_continue_all.

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?

It states a clear use case ('stub an API') and identifies the follow-up sibling ('release the rest with browser_network_continue_all'). It does not explicitly cover when not to use it or how interception must first be enabled, so it stops short of a full 5.

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