acronis_fetch_policy_applications

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds no behavior beyond that gloss. It says nothing about pagination defaults, whether soft-deleted or temporary applications appear by default (the schema exposes include_deleted and include_temporaries, so the defaults matter), or the potentially large result sets implied by a limit parameter.

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 filler, and the clarifying gloss is worth its space. It is slightly soft ('where policies are applied') when a firmer phrasing of the returned entity would be stronger.

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?

This is a complex tool with roughly 25 filter fields, nested objects, and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight than one sentence provides. It never describes what an 'application' record contains or how the many include_* flags shape the response, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer the payload from parameter names alone.

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 every nested query field carries its own explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes that filters are optional, adding no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules between filters (for example, how direct_only interacts with context_selection_id), so the baseline 3 is right.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('policy applications') and glosses the domain term as 'which resources each policy covers', which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as acronis_fetch_policies or acronis_fetch_application_statuses_by_policy, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The only usage signal is 'with optional filters', which says nothing about when to reach for this tool versus acronis_fetch_policies, acronis_fetch_applications_issue_statistics, or acronis_fetch_application_statuses_by_policy. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no indication of which filter combinations matter.

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