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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'stateless' and 'no-outreach' as behavioral context, but it does not disclose any additional side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. It provides some value beyond annotations but not rich detail.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Returns') and packs the core outcome into a compact, readable format. Every term contributes meaning, even if the meaning is somewhat technical.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description effectively communicates what the agent can expect to obtain. It covers the main outputs and is consistent with the provided annotations. However, it lacks any usage context or elaboration on the 'protected-runtime boundary', but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered vacuously. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to explain. No additional semantic value is needed or provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'gateway safety status', giving concrete aspects (stateless, product-owned, no-outreach posture, protected-runtime boundary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_valve or next_action, which focus on different domains. However, the jargon is somewhat opaque, reducing immediate clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description only states what it returns, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context on when to invoke it.

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