Get Tool Schema

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure that the response contains not just the input schema but also "authorization metadata" – important because there is no output schema to reveal the return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, with the prerequisite immediately following. The trailing Chinese-intent keyword line is padding for a mostly English-speaking agent, but it is brief and does not obscure the meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: the provenance of the required name and the fact that authorization metadata is returned. Only minor details (e.g., behavior when a name is unknown or not from search) are unaddressed.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), which already states it must be the exact tool name returned by gateway_search_tools. The description reinforces that provenance but adds no format, casing, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus a precisely named resource (exact input schema and authorization metadata) for a tool supplied by gateway_search_tools. It is clearly distinguishable from its siblings, especially gateway_search_tools (the discovery step) and gateway_execute_tool (the invocation step).

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 states the prerequisite clearly: the tool name must be one returned by gateway_search_tools, which tells an agent when this tool is applicable in the search -> inspect -> execute flow. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to skip schema lookup), so it falls just short of a 5.

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