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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only one behavioral fact — that inactive revisions are also returned — with no mention of error behavior when a revision number 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key state caveat is not 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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The minor remaining gap is nothing about the returned revision record's shape or behavior for missing revisions.

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%: both server_slug and revision already document their source (list_gateway_servers, list_gateway_server_revisions). The description adds no format, range, or constraint 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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('gateway server revision'), and a scope ('one'). The clause 'active or not' further distinguishes it from activation siblings and from the list tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you need a single revision, and the schema parameter descriptions point to list_gateway_server_revisions / list_gateway_servers for discovery. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_gateway_server or the list tool.

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