Get backup history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful auth scope (services:read when using an API key), but says nothing about pagination depth, retention, or ordering of the returned history.

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?

Two short, front-loaded clauses with no wasted words. It loses a point only because the sentences run together without punctuation ('service Requires'), slightly blurring the permission statement.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any sibling disambiguation and history-retrieval semantics, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want.

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%: orderNo format and the page/pagination hint are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 (get backup history for a service), which is clear on its own. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_backup_status or get_firecracker_backup_history, so the agent must infer which of the backup-history tools applies.

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 only guidance is the permission requirement (services:read with an API key); there is no statement of when to call this versus get_backup_status, create_backup, or get_firecracker_backup_history. No exclusions or context are provided.

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