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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that inactive revisions are retrievable, not just active ones — but says nothing about error behavior when the revision does not exist.

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 short sentence with zero padding, and the operative qualifier ('active or not') is placed where it is read immediately. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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 read-only single-entity fetch with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is adequate; the lack of an output schema means a note on the return shape would help, but the tool's shape is largely self-evident from its name and parameters.

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% and both parameters are documented inline, including the provenance of each value ('from list_gateway_server_revisions', 'from list_gateway_servers'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('gateway server revision') with a singular scope ('one'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_gateway_server_revisions. However, it never names or contrasts itself against any sibling tool (e.g. get_gateway_server), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'active or not' hints that the tool retrieves non-active revisions too, which is a mild usage cue, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent gets no direction on choosing this over get_gateway_server or list_gateway_server_revisions.

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