Gateway Stats (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is lighter. It adds the one behavioral fact annotations can't convey: the tool is deprecated and superseded. It does not say whether it still functions or what statistics are returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact clauses with the deprecation status and the replacement placed first. Every token earns its place; 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?

For a zero-parameter, fully-annotated, output-schema-less read tool, the description supplies the only missing information an agent needs: that it is deprecated and where to go instead. It could optionally state whether the call still returns data, but nothing essential is absent.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify and no coverage gap to compensate for.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get gateway statistics') and the deprecation tag immediately frames its status. The resource is somewhat generic (which statistics, from which gateway) and it does not position itself against siblings like gateway_process_tool_call, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'deprecated in v3.0.0' (when NOT to use) and names the alternative ('use the gateway.aeoess.com REST API'). This is the exact when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for, and it is front-loaded in brackets.

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