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 adds genuinely useful context beyond that: secret values are never returned, and each scope surfaces credential-storage state and OAuth-grant warnings. No pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource before enumerating returned fields. Dense but every clause carries information; the field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the secret-handling guarantee. It is nearly complete for a read-only list; only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.

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 the sole 'status' parameter is fully documented in the schema (live default, archived, all). The description does not mention the filter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (MCP servers registered on the MCP Gateway) plus the exact fields returned (slug, name, URL/tunnel, active revision, scopes, credential status, OAuth warnings). This is clearly distinguishable from get_gateway_server, list_gateway_server_revisions, and list_gateway_server_tools by scope.

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 listing intent is implied by the verb and the org-level scope, but the description never says when to reach for this versus get_gateway_server (single server) or the revision/tool listing siblings, nor does it surface the status filter as a usage consideration. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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