acronis_fetch_alert_counters

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description needed to add context about what is counted, scope, or filtering behavior. Instead it adds nothing beyond restating that grouping is possible, which the schema documents in far more detail. No mention of what the counters represent or how aggregation changes the result shape.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine 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?

The tool is a simple read with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, so the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. However, given the many adjacent alert-counting siblings, the missing scoping and differentiation leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 fully documents embed_types, embed_tenants, embed_categories, embed_severities, including mutual exclusivity. The description's "grouped by optional parameters" adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a verb and resource ("Fetches the alert counters"), which is better than a tautology, but the scope is vague: it never says whose counters, over what time window, or how it differs from siblings such as acronis_fetch_active_alert_count or acronis_fetch_alert_counts_per_customer. An agent cannot confidently choose it over those siblings from this text alone.

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 and no mention of alternatives, despite several closely related counting tools in the sibling list. The only guidance-like phrase, "may be grouped by optional parameters," describes a schema detail rather than a usage condition.

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