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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the return ordering (newest first) and the presence of an active-revision indicator, which is the only place an agent learns the response shape since there is no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the use case. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return semantics, and it does supply the ordering and active-flag detail; pagination is handled by the cursor parameter in the schema. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only listing tool, though a note on pagination behavior would close the gap.

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 (server_slug, cursor) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a gateway server's revisions') plus two concrete output facts: newest-first ordering and which revision is active. That is far more than a restatement of the name, though it does not name the sibling get_gateway_server_revision to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Use it to find a revision to roll back to' gives a clear primary scenario, implying the prerequisite that you need this before calling activate_gateway_server_revision. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the alternative tools for fetching revision details.

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