getGatewayDetail

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

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive read, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, by spelling out the configuration facets returned even though no output schema exists. It does not mention failure behavior for an unknown/incorrect MAC or permission scope, but that is a minor omission against the annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched and the enumerated payload, followed by a single prerequisite pointer. No filler or 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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough — it lists the returned facets and the MAC-sourcing prerequisite, while the schema covers site defaults. It falls just short of complete because it does not delimit the tool against the other gateway detail endpoints.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the same listDevices hint and the default-site fallback. The description repeats the listDevices guidance rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is the right level.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Fetch") plus resource ("gateway") and enumerates the returned facets — model, firmware, CPU/memory, WAN/LAN ports, routing mode, feature flags — so an agent knows exactly what the call yields. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like getSwitchDetail/getApDetail by the gateway scope, but it does not say how it differs from the other gateway-specific tools (getGatewayWanStatus, getGatewayLanStatus, getSitesGatewaysGeneralConfig).

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?

"Use listDevices to get the gatewayMac" supplies a concrete prerequisite, which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over the closely named gateway siblings, nor whether it is safe/appropriate to call in bulk or for a device that is not a gateway.

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