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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing result ordering ('newest first') and that active status is included in the response, which the annotations cannot convey.

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, zero filler, with the purpose and ordering front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by telling the agent what comes back (revisions, newest first, with active indicated); pagination is handled by the documented cursor param. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, missing only explicit tie-in to the sibling activate tool by name.

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%: server_slug is documented as coming from list_gateway_servers and cursor as the next_cursor of the previous page. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so 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 and resource ('List a gateway server's revisions') plus scope details: ordering ('newest first') and inclusion of the active flag. It implicitly distinguishes from the singular get_gateway_server_revision, though it doesn't name any sibling 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?

'Use it to find a revision to roll back to' gives a concrete selection scenario that points the agent toward the revision-listing → activate flow. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use get_gateway_server_revision instead of listing), so it stops short of 5.

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