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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first, each row includes a not_carried field explaining omissions, restore points outlive their source cluster, and the tool is only offered when backups are enabled.

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 verb, resource, and ordering, followed by usage mode, output note, read-only flag, and availability. Dense but every clause earns its place; the parenthetical CLI-twin reference is the only slightly expendable element.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully notes the not_carried row field. Combined with the availability precondition and filtering semantics it is nearly complete, though it could say more about how the filters (statuses, triggers, limit) interact.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the cluster+stack combination scopes to a single stack's history while passing neither broadens to org-wide. This combinatorial guidance is not in the schema itself.

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 (list) and resource (restore points) plus ordering (newest first), and disambiguates from singular/plural siblings like get_restore_point and delete_restore_point by naming the CLI twins. An agent can identify it immediately.

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 explains the two calling modes: name cluster+stack for one stack's history, or neither for the org-wide listing, plus the availability precondition (backups enabled). It does not name an alternative sibling tool for related tasks, so it falls short of a full 5.

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