backup_restore_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns progress percentage and current step (behavioral output detail), which adds transparency. However, it's a read-only status check with no destructive behavior, and the description is adequate but doesn't elaborate on edge cases like non-existent jobs or completion states.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. Efficiently states purpose, return values, and relationship to sibling. Exemplary conciseness.

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 status-lookup tool with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema requirement, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys return values and the sibling relationship. Minor gap: doesn't describe what terminal states look like or error behavior, but for this simple tool the description handles the essentials.

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% with both parameters documented (id as restore job ID, companyId as optional UUID override). The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states the tool gets status of a restore job, returns progress percentage and current step, and references backup_status for comparison. This is clear verb+resource but doesn't fully distinguish from backup_status beyond the statement that it's 'specifically for restore jobs'.

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 explicitly references the sibling backup_status and clarifies the difference (restore-specific). This provides context for when to use this tool vs backup_status, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when X, use backup_status when Y'.

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