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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that returned data includes scopes, credential storage status, OAuth grant warnings, and explicitly states that secret values are never returned.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration of return fields and the secret-handling note. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains what the tool returns. It covers key security-relevant behavior around credentials and secrets. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or permission requirements, but for a simple list tool with one optional parameter the core context is adequately complete.

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 including its default. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list MCP servers registered on the MCP Gateway. It also enumerates returned fields (slug, name, URL/tunnel, revision, scopes, credential status), making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as list_gateway_server_revisions or list_gateway_server_tools.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say when to call this instead of get_gateway_server, list_gateway_server_revisions, or list_gateway_tunnels, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb alone.

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