backup_restore_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what is returned (progress percentage and current step) — important since no output schema exists. It stops short of describing terminal states or failure reporting.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by return content and sibling differentiation. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only poll it covers action, return shape and sibling routing, and annotations carry the safety semantics. The one gap is how completion or failure is signaled, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 both `id` (restore job ID) and `companyId` (active-company override) documented in the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get status of a restore job) and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling backup_status, which is the closest confusion risk. It does not mention the backup_restore sibling that produces the job IDs, so routing is slightly less complete than it could be.

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?

"Same as backup_status but specifically for restore jobs" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects between them. It does not say when to poll versus wait, or whether the job is asynchronous, but the core use-vs-alternative guidance is present.

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