acronis_fetch_application_statuses_by_policy

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not mention that results are paginated (the schema's before/after/limit cursors imply it), that statuses can be filtered or aggregated, or how large the result set may be. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but this one-sentence description still leaves behavior undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the economy comes at the cost of omitting usage and behavioral context rather than from disciplined structuring.

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 read-only list query with no output schema and a richly documented but deep nested query object (19 sub-fields). Because output shape is not specified and no sibling routing is given, the description is only minimally sufficient; the schema carries most of the load.

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 the nested query parameters (status filter, policy_id, parent_id, include_aggregate_status, include_validation_issues, pagination cursors) are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add meaning beyond that, which sets the baseline at 3. Its policy-scoping phrase does hint at how policy_id is used, but the schema already says that.

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 specific verb and resource: it 'gets the status of every resource a given policy is applied to'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like acronis_fetch_policy_applications, acronis_fetch_policy, or acronis_fetch_resource_protection_status, all of which sound plausibly overlapping. The agent must infer the difference from names 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'every resource a given policy is applied to' implies a policy-scoped fan-out query, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over fetching policy applications or per-resource protection status.

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