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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) only signal a non-read, non-destructive call. The description goes well beyond: it names the required admin scope, discloses that queueing is picked up within 15 minutes and audit-logged, and explains the RED-vs-healthy interpretation rule. That is substantial context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the admin restriction and the core purpose lead, then the health criteria, then the trigger and return shape. Every clause carries information, though the single long paragraph is heavier than ideal for scanning.

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 carries the return contract itself, listing {health, reasons, targets, problems, schedule, runs, started?} and the RED-state semantics. Combined with the auth, trigger, and timing details, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of setting start (queued for the worker, 15-minute pickup, audit-logged) rather than just restating the enum values.

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 resource (backup and restore-drill health) with concrete facets: newest backup set verification/age, Object Lock immutability, drill pass history, worker liveness, targets, schedule and runs. No sibling tool touches backups, so it is trivially distinguished. An agent knows exactly what this returns before 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?

Gives prerequisites (admin-scoped token) and a clear trigger action: pass start: 'backup' or 'drill' to queue work, with the 15-minute pickup window noted. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but no alternative backup tool exists to route against, so this is close to complete.

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