acronis_fetch_alert_counts_per_customer

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description owes context beyond that — and supplies none: no indication of the response shape (customer-id → count mapping?), whether zero-count customers appear, whether the rich alert filters in the schema actually affect the counts, or any pagination/limit behavior.

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 no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — there is no front-loaded detail an agent could act on beyond the tool name. Brevity here reflects a thin definition, not disciplined editing.

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 takes a nested query object with ~17 filter fields and has no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back and how filters affect the grouping — it does neither. For an aggregation tool surrounded by look-alike siblings, this leaves an agent unable to predict results or choose 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%, with the nested `query` object's fields documented in detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how those filters interact with the per-customer aggregation, which is the one piece of semantics the schema cannot express.

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?

"Fetches count of alerts per customer" states a specific verb (fetch), resource (alerts) and aggregation scope (count per customer), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as acronis_fetch_alert_counters, acronis_fetch_active_alert_count, or acronis_fetch_alerts_grouped_per_customer, which sound like near-duplicates of the same aggregation.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the several sibling aggregation tools (alert counters, active alert count, alerts grouped per customer, alerts grouped by scope). No prerequisites, no mention of whether it supports filtering or which tenant scope it assumes.

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