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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Reads nothing' explicitly discloses that the call has no side effects, and 'live' signals freshness. It does not cover failure modes or exact response format, but for a zero-parameter read-only info tool this is reasonable.

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 with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the safety note ('Reads nothing') is a single meaningful addition.

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 no-parameter info tool with unrelated siblings, the description is complete: it identifies what the tool reports and confirms it is read-only. No output schema exists, but the listed data categories are enough for an agent to 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 for no-parameter tools applies; description adds no parameter info because none is needed.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Report'), names the exact resource ('this live gateway'), and lists concrete data categories (version, transport, hard limits). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling filing tools by resource type.

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 the use case: call it when you need live gateway version, transport, or hard limits. It provides no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but since siblings are unrelated filing tools, no when-not guidance is necessary.

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