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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context — storage location (/var/lib/askyourstack/dumps), a 7-day retention window, and the fact that each entry carries size and age. It doesn't say how entries are ordered or whether the listing can be long, but that's minor.

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?

One tightly packed passage that front-loads the resource and scope, then the categories, then the use case. The parenthetical category walk-through makes it slightly run-on but every clause carries information.

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 usefully explains what a returned item contains (size and age) and which artifacts are retained and for how long. Only ordering and result-size behavior are left unspecified, which is low-risk for a short-lived listing.

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% and the schema already explains that 'server' is optional when the account has a single server. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (list database dumps kept on a server) and enumerates the three dump categories with their filename prefixes (db_dump output, before-..., before-restore-...). This clearly separates it from db_dump (which creates dumps) and db_restore (which consumes them).

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?

It gives explicit routing: "Use it to find what db_restore can load back," which names the downstream sibling and the condition that selects this tool. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent list_snapshots or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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