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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: newest-first ordering, aggregate totals by status and refusal reason, and the privacy guarantee that bodies, query values, and headers are never stored.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what is returned and in what order, the second adds the privacy constraint that an agent or user would care about.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back and does so well: fields, ordering, and rollup totals. Pagination and what happens when limit exceeds available calls are not covered, a minor gap for a capped list tool.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the limit default and the app/status filter syntax. The description adds only the implicit notion of 'most recent calls' and does not clarify filter interaction beyond the schema. 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 resource (recent calls through the gateway) and enumerates the fields returned (time, app, matched route, status, reason, duration). It does not contrast itself with the closest sibling, gate_explain_refusal, so the agent must infer which one answers 'why was this refused'.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is for reviewing recent traffic and refusal totals. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or explicit alternative (e.g., gate_explain_refusal for a single refusal) is named.

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