backup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavior: it lists the status values (pending, processing, completed, failed) and explains the output includes a download URL when complete. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it polls/blocks or returns immediately, or any other side-effect behavior. The description adds some value but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 of zero-waste content. The first sentence states the purpose and outputs, the second lists all status values. Efficient and front-loaded with no filler.

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?

This is a simple status-check tool with a single required parameter, well-documented schema parameters, and no output schema. The description clearly conveys what a caller should expect (progress, current step, download URL, status values). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results, though it could note the download URL only appears on completion as a side note. A 4 fits given the tool's low complexity.

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 parameters (id and companyId) documented in the schema. The description itself adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. Per the baseline rule with high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (get) and resource (backup job status) and adds useful specifics about what's returned (progress percentage, current step, download URL). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like backup_download or backup_restore_status, but the status-related purpose is reasonably distinct. A 4 is appropriate since it lacks explicit sibling differentiation but is otherwise clearly specific.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and lists the possible statuses, which implies when it would be used (checking on an in-progress backup job). However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this vs backup_download (which fetches the completed backup) or backup_restore_status (which tracks restore jobs). The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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