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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; 'Reads nothing' largely restates readOnlyHint. The one piece of added context is that the response includes 'hard limits,' hinting at bounded values, but permissions, caching, or refresh behavior are not discussed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the payload description followed by the read-only reassurance. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 zero parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema to define return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description has little left to explain and covers purpose adequately. Only the 'hard limits' concept and any auth/rate considerations are left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs because none exist.

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 verb ('Report') and resource ('this live gateway') plus the exact fields returned (version, transport, hard limits). It is unmistakably distinct from the filing-oriented siblings (get_filing, list_filing_facets, search_filings), which all concern filings rather than the gateway itself.

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 implies when to call it (introspecting the running gateway) and adds the note 'Reads nothing,' but it names no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit, which fits the minimum-viable bar.

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