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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does. It discloses that credentials are reported only as set/not-set ('never the secret') and that API credentials and MCP client tokens are exclusively entered or shown on the dashboard, with a direct instruction never to ask for them in chat; that is behavior an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the returned payload is stated first, then the credential-handling constraint. Every clause carries information — the field enumeration, the rollback cross-reference, and the chat-secret prohibition — with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 must describe the return shape, and it does by listing the fields including credential status and links. Combined with a fully documented single parameter and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 single gateway_id parameter already carries 'From list_gateways.' The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation guidance for the ID beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (one MCP gateway) and enumerates exactly what is returned: live URL, upstream base URL, credential-set status, tools, published versions, and dashboard links. It also credits rollback_gateway as the consumer of the published-versions field, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings without opening a schema.

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 parenthetical '(for rollback_gateway)' gives a concrete routing cue: fetch this record before attempting a rollback. The credential/token sentence also steers the agent away from collecting secrets in chat and toward the dashboard links. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_gateways or the update_* siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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