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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the REST endpoint and the fact that routing rules are included. No further behavioral details (errors, auth, rate limits) are provided, but the bar is lower because annotations are present.

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 with no filler. The core behavior and identifier are front-loaded, and the API reference is a compact addition that helps ground the tool in the underlying service.

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 single-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is retrieved, how it is identified, and what is included. A note on return format would be nice but is not critical here.

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 schema already describes the slug parameter. The description's 'by slug (or id)' mirrors the schema rather than adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('single gateway config'), and the identifier ('by slug or id'). Mentioning 'including its routing rules' adds meaningful detail and 'single' clearly distinguishes this from list-style sibling tools.

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving one specific config by slug or id, which implies the opposite of list_configs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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