List restore points

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the backup type is 'automatic off-node', the results feed request_restore, and it requires services:read when called with an API key.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the routing and auth notes following in priority order. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites and downstream use. It does not describe the shape of the returned points (fields, ids, pagination), which is the only notable gap.

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% with a single, fully documented orderNo parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The phrase 'for a service' loosely links the call to the service identifier but adds no format or naming detail beyond the schema.

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 ('List available backup restore points') and scopes it ('for a service (automatic off-node backups)'), which implicitly separates it from snapshot and application-level siblings. It stops short of naming the closest relatives such as list_restore_file_points or browse_restore_files, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use a point id with request_restore' gives clear downstream context, effectively telling the agent this tool is a read step that feeds a mutation. It also states the auth requirement, but offers no explicit exclusion (e.g. when to prefer file-level browsing instead).

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