list_global_gateways

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and return fields, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is cached or dynamic, which are important for agent decision-making.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does, listing the HTTP endpoint and return fields, and providing usage context. No unnecessary words 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields. It also ties into the sibling create_gateway tool, enhancing completeness. However, it could mention if there are any prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or if the list is globally available without pagination.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (100% coverage). The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no further explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool lists available global gateway types, provides examples (Stripe, Braintree), and specifies the endpoint and return fields. It distinguishes from sibling list_gateways by noting 'global' types, and the return fields differentiate it from other list tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before create_gateway' to discover valid gblGatewayId and keys, guiding the agent on typical workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though none are likely needed.

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