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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is not required to restate that. It adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the manage_options capability requirement, the { active: false } degradation shape, and the exact fields returned. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but neither is relevant for an aggregate summary.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then the return contents, then the degradation behavior, then the permission requirement. Each sentence adds a distinct, actionable fact with no filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the degraded response shape, and it discloses the auth requirement. For a zero-required-param read tool this is nearly complete; only an explicit alternative-tool routing statement is missing.

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% and the single site_id parameter is fully documented with an enum, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at baseline 3 given complete schema coverage.

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 ('Composite read') and resource ('SiteVault Pro backup health') and enumerates exactly what the payload covers: latest backup age, counts, retention target, scheduler state, storage-provider status. It is distinguishable from sv_get_backups / sv_get_schedules by being a single aggregated dashboard view, though it never names those siblings 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?

'For orchestrator dashboards' and 'at a glance' imply the intended use case, and the graceful-degradation clause tells the agent what to expect when SiteVault is absent. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sv_get_backup_status or sv_get_backups, nor any stated exclusions.

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