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

Annotations already cover the read-only/safe profile, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the value is server-wide and identical across domains, a non-parsable value is reported as a measurement failure (not as 'no backup exists'), and the data originates from a once-daily turbocheck report with a timestamp in the response.

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?

Purpose and the key caveat (server-wide, not domain-specific) are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information. It is somewhat dense and emphatic (capitalized KEINE/NICHT), but nothing is genuinely redundant.

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 covers the return fields, the failure/missing-value semantics, and the data freshness source. An agent needs nothing more to call and correctly interpret this tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the domain parameter by clarifying that the returned value is server-wide and therefore identical for every domain pointing at the same server, so the agent knows the parameter does not scope the result.

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 (abrufen) and resource (Stand der nächtlichen Gesamtsicherung des Servers), including the concrete returned fields (Datum, Status, Alter). It explicitly marks itself as NOT a per-domain backup, which separates it from the WordPress backup siblings.

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 names the alternatives get_wordpress_backups and create_wordpress_backup and the selecting condition: single-site backup or restore goes there, not here. This is a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use split rather than inferred guidance.

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