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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: the concrete return shape (per-server mode of none/selected/all, tools, scopes, revision) and the inheritance rule that 'every instance of the agent inherits them'.

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 dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the payload fields and the inheritance fact. Nothing is wasted, though the nested enumeration makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes what is returned (per-server mode, tools, scopes, revision) and the inheritance behavior. It's sufficient to call and interpret the tool, with only minor gaps in pagination/format detail.

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 coverage is 100% and the single agent_slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (list_agents). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies for a one-param tool whose schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (an agent's grants on gateway servers), and clarifies the granularity (per server, with mode/tools/scopes/revision). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_gateway_servers and list_gateway_server_tools, which operate at the server level rather than the agent-grant level.

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 cross-references the sibling set_agent_tool_access by noting it returns 'the revision set_agent_tool_access needs', which tells the agent this is the read-before-write step for updating access. However, it stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternatives.

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