get_api_gateway_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the read action and resource name. It implies a safe GET operation but gives no information about what the status represents, whether it reflects enabled/disabled state, or what the response contains.

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 a single sentence with zero filler and the main action is front-loaded. It is concise, though it borders on underspecification because it simply rephrases the tool name.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and full schema coverage, the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and no usage context. The bare phrase 'Get API Gateway discovery status' does not explain what the status means or what a caller should expect, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool in a large, confusing sibling set.

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% because zone_id is documented as 'The zone ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb+resource construction: 'Get API Gateway discovery status'. It names a distinct resource ('discovery status') that is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_api_gateway_config and get_api_gateway_settings. However, it does not explain what 'discovery status' means, so the purpose is clear at a surface level but not fully elaborated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many related API Gateway tools in the sibling list. No mention of prerequisites, relationships to discovery schemas, operations, or configuration, so an agent gets no help choosing between this and similar getters.

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