acronis_fetch_resources_with_top_severity_alerts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description should add context such as what "highest severity" means (per resource vs. globally), how many alerts per resource drive the selection, or what the response looks like. Instead it restates purpose in an ambiguous way and discloses no behavior beyond the annotation, and it has no output schema to fall back on.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, which is good, but the sentence is awkwardly recursive ("...alerts with the highest severity found for the resources") and forces re-reading. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than being a virtue.

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 no output schema and a nested query parameter, the description is the agent's only source for what actually comes back, and it fails to specify whether results are per-resource max-severity alerts or a global ranked list. Combined with the absence of any sibling differentiation, an agent lacks enough to invoke this confidently versus acronis_fetch_all_alerts.

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 the nested query object documents both `id` (including the `or()` operator syntax) and `embed_alert`. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema is carrying the full parameter burden adequately.

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 verb ("fetches") and a resource ("resources' statuses") and adds a qualifier about alerts with the highest severity, so the intent is roughly graspable. However, the phrasing "the resources' statuses that contain the alerts with the highest severity found for the resources" is circular and leaves it unclear whether it returns resources, statuses, or alerts. It also does nothing to separate this tool from close siblings like acronis_fetch_resources, acronis_fetch_resource_protection_status, and acronis_fetch_all_alerts.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no indication of when an agent should pick this over acronis_fetch_resources or acronis_fetch_all_alerts, and no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The only implied usage is embedded in the purpose statement itself.

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