search_gateways

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic purpose. It doesn't disclose return format, response size, or rate limits, but these are less critical given the annotations and output schema presence.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the essential purpose without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only search with full schema documentation and an output schema, so the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it could have added a brief note about what a 'gateway' represents or that it returns all gateways if no filters are applied. Still, it is complete enough given the available structured context.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including defaults and examples. The description itself only mentions 'filtering and pagination' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('routing gateways') and mentions filtering and pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gateway_status (status lookup) and search_gateway_groups (gateway groups).

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 clearly implies use for listing/searching gateways with filtering options, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Context is clear enough for an agent to infer this is the general search tool for gateways.

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