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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: these are on-demand WP Toolkit backups independent of Plesk full backups, the customer has no direct access to the latter, and it clearly reports when no WordPress is found.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, no redundant filler. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides but every clause carries meaning.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete, covering scope, the backup-type distinction, and the empty-result behavior. It does not describe return shape, but that is minor given it is a simple 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?

Only one parameter (domain) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (listet) and resource (On-Demand-WordPress-Backups) and scopes it to WP Toolkit, explicitly distinguishing it from the daily automatic Plesk full backups. An agent can tell it apart from get_backup_status and create_wordpress_backup without opening a 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?

The contrast with Plesk full backups implies the usage context (this is for on-demand WP backups specifically), but it never states an explicit when-to-use rule or names an alternative tool to prefer instead. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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