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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the redundant 'Read-only' repeat earns little. What does add value is the 'from local history' qualifier, which tells the agent the result reflects recorded history rather than a live storage scan, plus the explicit field list and the cross-tool handoff.

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 purpose and return shape in two tight sentences; the follow-on clauses are slightly noisy boilerplate ('(site: demo.royalplugins.com) Through Royally: read-only, runs straight away') that repeats annotation-derived facts, but nothing is buried.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, result fields, and the natural next call. Only pagination defaults and the distinction from the sv_get_backups sibling are left implicit.

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%, covering limit, offset, and the site_id enum, so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description mentions no parameters at all, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List UpdraftPlus backups') and scopes it precisely ('from local history'), which separates it from remote-storage scanning and from siblings like updraftplus_get_schedule or sv_get_backups. The enumeration of returned fields makes the output unit unambiguous.

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?

It gives a downstream routing hint ('pass it to updraftplus_get_backup_status'), which is useful for chaining, but never says when to choose this over the closely related siblings royal-mcp__sv_get_backups or sv_get_backup_status. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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