acronis_fetch_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not restate it. The description adds that the policy's settings are part of the result, though this is slightly imprecise since settings depend on the include_settings query flag, and it says nothing about the composite-policy expansion behavior controlled by full_composite.

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 verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 100% schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, most of the burden is carried by structured fields, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. However, the nested path/query structure and the composite-policy semantics are non-trivial, and the one-line description gives an agent no orientation on them.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four query options (full_composite, include_settings, links_and_issues, include_applied_context) are already documented in the schema with descriptions. The description contributes only the notion of lookup 'by ID', which maps to the already-documented policy_id, so baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Gets one protection policy') and scopes it to a single item 'by ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool acronis_fetch_policies. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 over acronis_fetch_policies or acronis_fetch_policy_applications, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid policy_id. The only hint is the phrase 'by ID', which implies single-item lookup but is not framed as a usage rule.

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