Get application data restore

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the status lifecycle (queued, running, awaiting_reply stay active; needs_attention is not success) and the consequential side effect that mutations stay locked until a signed worker result or operator verification resolves it. It also states the required scope, applications:read, which an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before status semantics and the auth requirement. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the status clause is dense enough to need a second read.

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 carries the burden of explaining what polling yields, and the status enumeration largely does that, plus the tenant-bound scoping and required scope. It omits return shape and any backoff guidance, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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 orderNo, restore_id, and installation_id are fully documented in the schema, including that restore_id comes from restore_application_data. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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 (poll) and resource (one tenant-bound selective application data restore), clearly indicating a repeated status-check operation rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly contrast itself against a sibling like get_backup_status, but the scope wording is 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?

The imperative 'Poll' and the enumeration of which statuses remain active versus terminal convey when this tool is meant to be called and when to stop polling. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit exclusion, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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