Backup-Status pro Kunde

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what the rollup aggregates, that severity counts and a traffic-light status are computed, and that threshold semantics are inherited from get-backup-health-summary, which warns the agent that results will be consistent with that sibling.

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 well-formed sentences, front-loaded with the aggregation content and followed by intended-use cases and a threshold note. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long enumeration keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does by enumerating the rollup fields. Combined with annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile and full schema coverage on inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit precedence rules vs. get-backup-health-summary are missing.

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 parameters (client substring filter, includeHidden with its default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 gives a specific verb-equivalent (Rollup) plus the exact resource (Kunde) and enumerates the returned facets: Geräte online/offline, geschützte Agents/Shares, kritische und Warn-Befunde, Ampelstatus. It also implicitly separates itself from the global sibling by noting it shares thresholds with get-backup-health-summary, so an agent can tell the per-client rollup apart from the portfolio-level summary.

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?

Concrete use cases are named ('Monatsreports, QBRs, wie steht Kunde X da?'), which gives the agent a clear context for invocation. It references get-backup-health-summary, but only to note shared thresholds rather than to state explicitly when to prefer that sibling over this one, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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