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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the redundant 'Read-only' line earns little. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the availability gate (backups must be enabled for the organisation) and the semantic of the not_carried field, which explains what data is deliberately absent and why.

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 action and the returned payload, followed by two short clauses on discovery and availability. The 'Read-only' sentence duplicates the annotation, a small waste, but everything else earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields - including the unusual not_carried - is genuinely necessary and present. Adding the availability precondition closes the main remaining gap; an agent has enough to select and call it correctly.

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%, including the note that the id comes from list_restore_points, so the description's pointer to list_restore_points is duplicative. It adds no addressing detail beyond the schema (e.g. how stack_name and cluster_name interact), 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 restore point in full') and then enumerates exactly what is returned - status, size, verification, carried assets, producing run, and not_carried. An agent can distinguish this from list_restore_points and the many sibling list/get tools without opening the schema.

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 routes id discovery to list_restore_points and states a precondition ('Only offered when backups are enabled for the organisation'). It does not spell out an explicit when-not case, but the single-record retrieval context is unambiguous.

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