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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only, runs straight away' mostly restates structured data. The fixed site scoping is a small extra, but nothing is said about the shape of the returned detail or failure behavior for an invalid ID.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded. The 'Through Royally' branding clause is filler, but the rest earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with fully described parameters and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient. An agent still lacks any hint of what the detail payload contains or how to obtain a valid ID, both of which matter here.

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 'id' and 'site_id' are already documented, including the enum. The description only echoes 'by ID' and the site name; baseline 3 applies since the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific backup by ID'. This clearly separates it from the listing/polling siblings like sv_get_backups and sv_get_backup_status, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies you must already have a backup identifier, which is a weak usage cue. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to sv_get_backups for discovering IDs, so routing is left to inference.

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