acronis_fetch_resource_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing further. It does not say whether the count includes deleted resources by default, whether counts respect tenant scoping, or what the returned count object looks like.

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 tight sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes at the cost of any routing or return-shape information.

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 tool with a deeply nested 17-property filter object and no output schema, so the description should at minimum describe the return value (a count) and typical filter usage. It provides neither, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 detailed nested docs for all 17 filter fields, including mutual-exclusion notes. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a count of all resources') that distinguishes it from the plural listing sibling acronis_fetch_resources by emphasizing a count. However, it never explicitly contrasts with acronis_fetch_resources or acronis_search, leaving the agent to infer the count-vs-list distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of acronis_fetch_resources or acronis_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only implied cue is 'match filter parameters', which the schema already supplies.

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