gateway_call_tool_sanitized

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

The description's 'read-only' claim aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation (no contradiction) and adds the sanitization-before-delivery behavior as useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose what sanitization does, failure modes, or error behavior; annotations carry most of the safety burden.

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 with no wasted words; the core action is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the parameter gaps.

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 generic routing tool with three undocumented parameters and safety implications (which routes are callable, what policy controls, what sanitization strips), the description leaves the invocation contract underspecified. The output schema covers returns, but the input contract is unclear.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (tool_name, arguments_json, policy). It adds no meaning beyond names and defaults, leaving the agent to guess how arguments are encoded and what policy values do.

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+resource ('Call a read-only backend route') plus a distinctive second behavior ('sanitize its result before agent delivery') that separates it from the sibling gateway_call_tool. It is clear, though somewhat generic about what a 'backend route' is and what sanitization entails.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus gateway_call_tool or any other sibling. The agent is left to infer when the sanitized variant is preferred and whether policy/arguments_json should differ, with no when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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