Read restore progress and result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of whether progress is reported while running, what a completed vs failed result looks like, or whether repeated polling is expected.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded phrase with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But it is under-specified rather than concise; the same six words could have carried the return-shape or polling context.

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 and no parameter docs, the description should explain what 'progress and result' contains and how it relates to the sibling wait tool for polling. An agent can guess it fetches restore status, but not how to use it in a restore workflow.

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 0%, and the only documented parameter is the nested namespace reference. The description says nothing about 'cluster' or 'restore' — notably whether 'restore' is an ID or a name, and whether 'cluster' scopes the lookup — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance on when to call this versus restores_list (to enumerate restores) or wait (to block on completion). The 'progress' wording weakly implies polling, but that is left entirely to inference.

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