db_gateway__gateway_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show ... active configuration' implies a non-mutating read, and it names the categories of data returned (masking rules, table policies, audit settings). However it says nothing about permissions required, whether any state changes, or sensitivity of the exposed config, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then enumerates the returned content categories. No filler, no redundancy.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what it will see. It could be more complete by noting read-only semantics or any access requirements, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing input arguments.

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 ('Show') and resource ('active gateway configuration') and enumerates the contents (field masking rules, table policies, audit settings), which distinguishes it from data-query siblings like query_table/list_tables. It does not explicitly contrast with query_audit_log, which touches the same 'audit' domain, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied — a status tool is used to inspect current configuration — but the description never says when to call it versus alternatives such as describe_table or query_audit_log, and lists no prerequisites or trigger conditions.

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