acronis_fetch_active_alert_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one piece of behavior beyond that by disclosing a second return field, the last modification time, but says nothing about scope (tenant-wide vs current user), freshness, or cost of the call, leaving the meaningful gaps unfilled.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the primary return value and appends the secondary one. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness contributes to the missing scope information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only counter with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back, which is the minimum an agent needs. What is missing is the scope of the count and how it relates to the several near-identical counting siblings, and with no output schema the return shape is only partly described.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to say anything more about inputs and doesn't confuse the reader with any.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns count of active alerts') plus a secondary return field ('last modification time'), so the purpose is decipherable. But among siblings like acronis_fetch_alert_counters, acronis_fetch_alert_counts_per_customer, and acronis_fetch_all_alerts, nothing here explains what scope of alerts this count covers or why it is distinct from the counters tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated preconditions or scope. An agent has to guess whether this is the right tool versus acronis_fetch_alert_counters or acronis_fetch_all_alerts.

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