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 that results include live connections and the entries served, which is useful content context, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary purpose. The trailing clause ('the tunnel_id and tunnel_entry values a server reached through a tunnel names') is grammatically tangled and slightly hard to parse, costing some clarity.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (tunnel_id, tunnel_entry, live connections, entries served). For a one-optional-param read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete, missing only pagination/volume expectations.

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 status parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only glancingly reinforces the live default via 'their live connections' and adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond the schema, so 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 (tunnels the organization runs in its own network), and explains what a tunnel carries (live connections, entries served). This clearly separates it from the gateway-server siblings, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The status parameter implies a live/archived/all distinction, but the description never states when an agent should reach for this tool versus list_gateway_servers or get_gateway_server.

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