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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that results include live connections and the entries served, plus the relevant tunnel_id and tunnel_entry values. It does not mention pagination or permissions, but against the annotation coverage this is a meaningful addition.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and resource, with the return-content details following after the colon. There is no wasted text, though the sentence is somewhat dense and could be marginally easier to scan.

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, but the description compensates by explaining what the tool returns: live connections, served entries, and the tunnel_id/tunnel_entry values. With one optional parameter fully covered by the schema and strong annotation coverage for safety, the definition is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 status parameter is already fully documented in the schema with its default and values (live, archived, all). The description does not add parameter-specific guidance or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource: it lists tunnels the organization runs in its own network, and it also states what each result includes (live connections and served entries). It does not explicitly contrast with nearby gateway-server tools, but no direct tunnel-list sibling exists, so the purpose remains clear.

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 only states what the tool does; it gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_gateway_servers or get_gateway_server. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual conditions to help an agent choose among related list tools.

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