iaas_get_compute_gateway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — not even noting that it returns a single object or what happens on an unknown ID — and its third line merely repeats the annotation title's endpoint path.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but three lines communicate one fact, with line two restating line one and line three duplicating the annotation title. Redundancy rather than under-specification is the issue.

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 simple single-resource GET with complete schema coverage and rich annotations, this is minimally sufficient — an agent can call it correctly. It stops short of describing the returned gateway object or error behavior, which would have made it complete without an output schema.

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 both the path ID and optional apiVersion documented in the schema itself. The description's 'with a given id' adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a compute gateway with a given id'), so an agent knows it retrieves a single gateway rather than a collection. It does not name the sibling list tool iaas_get_compute_gateways to make the single-vs-list distinction explicit, and the first two lines restate the same fact.

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 only implied: 'with a given id' signals that the caller must already have the gateway ID, which hints at when to use it versus the list endpoint. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named.

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