Get firecracker backup history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value beyond them: the endpoint is not paginated, records and backups return the same list, temporary VMs yield an empty disabled history, and it requires services:read. These are concrete behavioral traits the annotations don't carry.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by behavioral caveats and the auth requirement. Every sentence carries useful information, though the density of clauses in the first half slightly reduces scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by noting the list contents, the records/backups equivalence, and the absence of pagination, plus the auth requirement and the temporary-VM edge case. This is nearly enough for correct invocation, with the only gap being return-field shape.

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 coverage is 100% and the single orderNo parameter is fully documented in the schema (pattern, length, example). The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Get') plus a scoped resource ('retained nightly Firecracker VPS backup history'), and enumerates what the history contains ('failed/running attempts and consistency provenance'). It distinguishes itself from the broader get_backup_history by the 'nightly Firecracker' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_firecracker_backup_status.

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 provides prerequisite context ('Requires services:read') and an edge-case behavior ('Temporary VMs return an empty disabled history'), which help decide applicability. However, it never states when to use this versus get_firecracker_backup_status or get_backup_history, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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