List browsable backup points

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds meaningfully: browsing is free and never charges the account or changes the server, it requires services:read, and it is initially limited to Firecracker VPS. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination, hence not a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the key ordering constraint, then cost/permission/platform caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant with the title or schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the workflow dependency on browse_restore_files, the semantics of the returned flag, cost implications, permission requirement, and platform availability.

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?

Only one parameter (orderNo) and schema description coverage is 100%, with an explicit pattern/format/example in the schema. The description's 'for one owned service' reinforces the tenant-ownership constraint but adds no syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 (List) and resource (nightly backup points whose contents can be browsed file by file) scoped to one owned service, and additionally declares a secondary output (the searchAvailable flag). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_restore_points and get_restore_file_browse.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Always call this before browse_restore_files' and explains why: the searchAvailable flag is the only reliable signal of whether the filter argument can be used. It also names the prerequisite permission (services:read) and platform scope (Firecracker VPS), leaving nothing to inference.

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