acronis_fetch_tenant_children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral information beyond that: the result is IDs only (not full tenant objects) and the scope is direct children only, not a recursive subtree — both material for how an agent plans follow-up calls.

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 that front-loads the verb and the key scoping word ('directly'), with no filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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?

For a simple read-only, fully documented 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (IDs) and its depth scope. It stops short of noting pagination behavior, which the schema handles but which an agent would benefit from seeing up front.

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%, including the tenant_id UUID pattern, the cursor semantics for 'after', ordering options, and allow_deleted. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('IDs of the tenants directly under a tenant'), plus a concrete example ('a partner's customers'). The word 'directly' implicitly distinguishes it from whole-subtree or single-tenant siblings like acronis_fetch_tenant, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the hierarchy framing — call it when you need the immediate children of a known tenant. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as acronis_fetch_tenants_batch for bulk lookups, and no note that results are paginated.

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