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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact per-server shape of the result (mode enum values, tools, scopes, revision) and the inheritance rule that every agent instance shares these grants.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and then the result shape via a compact colon list. Dense but no wasted clauses; slight cost in readability from packing four distinct facts into one sentence.

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 describing the returned fields and the revision token. Safety is covered by annotations. It stops short of stating whether results cover all gateway servers or only those the agent touches, which leaves a small 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already pointing at list_agents as the source of agent_slug. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond that, 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?

Specific verb (list) plus a precise resource (an agent's tool grants on gateway servers), and it enumerates what comes back: per-server mode (none/selected/all), granted tools and scopes, and the revision token. It is distinguishable from server-scoped siblings like list_gateway_server_tools, though the agent-scoped contrast is left implicit.

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 clause 'the revision set_agent_tool_access needs' implies the read-before-write workflow, which is useful routing signal, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion naming list_gateway_server_tools / get_agent as alternatives. Usage must be inferred.

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