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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, so the 'Read-only' sentence is mostly corroboration; the genuinely additive disclosure is the organisational prerequisite ('Only offered when backups are enabled'). It also compensates for the absent output schema by describing what the response contains, though it says nothing about pagination or size limits on the per-step attempts.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before routing and constraints; each earns its place except the 'Read-only' line, which restates the readOnlyHint annotation and is mildly redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the shape of the response, the diagnostic purpose, the id-discovery route and an availability prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the call correctly is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Run id (UUID) from list_data_runs'). The description reinforces provenance but adds no format or constraint information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show one backup, restore or clone run') and enumerates the content returned (step key, job, status, failure class, error excerpt). It is unmistakable against siblings such as list_data_runs, which is named as the discovery path.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('This is what explains why a backup failed'), names the alternative tool for finding run ids (list_data_runs), and gives a precondition ('Only offered when backups are enabled for the organisation'). An agent knows both when to call it and which sibling to call first.

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