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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add one real behavioral fact beyond annotations: results are ordered newest first. However, it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether the list is bounded, which matters for a listing tool with no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the ordering detail placed immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, so the bar is low. Still, with no output schema, the description gives no hint of what a returned checkpoint contains (id, timestamp, label?) or whether the list can be long — information an agent needs to plan a subsequent restore_checkpoint call.

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?

The single projectId parameter has full schema coverage including a UUID pattern and the pointer 'Project id from list_projects', so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about scoping, defaults, or pagination. Baseline 3 applies at 100% coverage.

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 ('Lists restore points'), and the synonym 'restore points' clarifies that checkpoints are restoration snapshots, which helps against save_checkpoint/restore_checkpoint siblings. It never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings, so the differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit 'list' semantics, no mention that it requires a projectId, and no routing away from siblings such as get_project or restore_checkpoint. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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