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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a key behavioral detail: 'Requires login.' This is beyond annotations and is crucial for the agent to know. It doesn't mention other behaviors, but for a read-only listing, this is sufficient.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('List') and resource, then provides the return fields and the login requirement. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema absent, the description is fully complete: it states what is returned, the login requirement, and the safety profile via annotations. There is nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly that is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% as there are no properties to describe. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds value by clarifying what the return fields are, making the output easier to interpret. This exceeds the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('servers registered behind your Rokha gateway'), and explicitly enumerates the fields returned (slug, URL, authenticating alias) and the gateway_url. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling gateway_register, which is about registration.

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 implies usage context (listing gateway servers) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling name gateway_register, it could have explicitly said 'for registering, use gateway_register instead,' but that is not critical for a listing tool.

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