service_backups_get_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint: no pagination behavior despite limit/offset, no default result size, no note on what an empty list means. It repeats structured information rather than extending it.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, so there is no wasted wording, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Two lines that merely pair a name restatement with an HTTP route are the minimum viable form.

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 5-parameter list tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough: result shape, pagination semantics and filter/sort syntax are all undocumented. Only the service scoping is recoverable from the endpoint string.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carried the full burden and largely failed. It only surfaces serviceId (via the path template) and says nothing about sort, filter, limit (default 50) or offset (default 0) — meaning an agent must guess accepted sort/filter syntax entirely.

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 says "Get backups" and gives the endpoint GET /services/{serviceId}/backups, which does convey that it lists backups scoped to a single service. However, "Get backups" largely restates the tool name, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools such as service_backups_create or service_backups_get_backups_price beyond the HTTP path.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid serviceId or the service having backups enabled, and no reference to alternatives. The only usage signal is the embedded endpoint path.

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