acronis_fetch_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description owes little on safety, but it adds essentially nothing beyond that — no mention of paged results, default unlimited return when limit is omitted, or the tenant-header fallback behavior that materially affects results. The single sentence carries no behavioral context.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is not padded, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With 16 nested filter/paging parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and many sibling fetch tools, the description is too thin — it omits result shape, pagination expectations, and how filters like online/unsupported interact with tenant scoping. An agent must read the whole schema to call this 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% and the nested query object documents filtering, paging, and ordering in detail, so the schema does all the work. The description mentions only the tenant scoping implicitly and adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('Acronis agents') with scope ('installed on machines in a tenant'), so an agent can tell this is a listing tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'acronis_fetch_agent' (singular), but the plural/list framing makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to pick this over 'acronis_fetch_agent' for a single record, or over 'acronis_search', and no prerequisites (e.g., tenant context) are mentioned.

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