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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature. The description adds useful context by disclosing the specific report contents, including unhealthy indicators (no recent backup, failed boot check), but it does not cover return format, pagination, or any other behavioral trait beyond what the annotation implies.

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 lists exactly what the tool reports with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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 must convey return content, and it does: device list, healthy count, and flagged issues. Filtering and row limits are left to the schema, which documents them fully. Only minor details such as response format are absent, making it nearly complete for this low-complexity 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the limit and client parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline expectation when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource (backup status) and specifies the content of the report: protected devices, healthy count, and devices with no recent backup or failed boot check. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like patch_status or security_posture by domain, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions that would select this tool over siblings such as health_findings or estate_overview. Usage is only implied by the description of outputs.

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