Describe a public MCP gateway endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it is a GET operation with public authorization, which aligns with annotations and provides additional context. No contradictions, but no detailed behavioral disclosure (e.g., error responses, latency).

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?

Description is very concise: three short lines. It front-loads the purpose and adds operation details. Could be slightly more informative without bloat, but overall efficient.

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 annotations (read-only, idempotent) and existence of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It adds the HTTP method and auth class. Could mention that it returns gateway details, but not essential since output schema exists.

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 has one required parameter 'gatewayPublicId' with 0% description coverage. The description implicitly explains it via the path template '{gatewayPublicId}', but does not explain its meaning, format, or constraints beyond being the public ID.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool describes a public MCP gateway endpoint. The name 'pc_get_mcp_gateways_by_gateway_public_id' is specific and differentiates from siblings that deal with companies, skills, or other entities.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other gateway-related tools like 'pc_post_mcp_gateways_by_gateway_public_id' or 'pc_get_companies_by_company_id_tools_gateways'. The description only provides the HTTP method and path, not context for selection.

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