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

Adds useful context beyond annotations: it is differential, starts within a minute, is unavailable on linked forks, and requires backups.write scope. It does not explain what the call returns or how to monitor completion, but annotations already cover the mutation and non-destructive profile.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: purpose, timing, restriction, and required scope are all stated without 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?

For a simple one-parameter operation, the description covers purpose, timing, restriction, and auth scope. It does not say what 'starts' returns or whether the caller should poll for completion, but the core invocation context is present.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents the single database parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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: it starts a differential backup for a database. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as list_database_backups and restore_database.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('before a risky migration') and an explicit exclusion ('Not available on a linked fork'). No sibling tool competes for starting a backup, so no alternative routing is needed.

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