backup_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (progress percentage, current step, download URL) and the full status lifecycle (pending, processing, completed, failed) — information the annotations cannot convey and that is essential for a polling tool.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return shape and status values. Nothing redundant with the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does it well by naming the fields and enumerating statuses. It stops short of the one operational detail a polling tool needs — whether to re-invoke until 'completed' and whether backup_download should follow — but overall it is sufficient to call correctly.

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%, so both the backup job ID and the companyId override are documented in the schema. The description says nothing about either parameter and offers no syntax or format guidance; with full schema coverage the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status of a backup job'), which is materially clearer than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling status/read tools in this family (backup_history, backup_restore_status, backup_download), so an agent must infer which one to call for a given job type.

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?

Usage is implied by the required job ID and by 'download URL when complete', which hints the agent should poll until completion and then fetch the artifact. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to backup_restore_status/backup_history as alternatives, which matters given four similarly named backup tools.

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