acronis_fetch_tenant_mfa_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main job is to add context — but it only restates the data domain. It says nothing about whether results are tenant-wide or per-user, whether MFA enforcement policy is included, or whether an unconfigured tenant returns an empty versus error response.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which is the right failure mode for a short definition.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnly annotated and full schema coverage, this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema the description should have sketched the shape of the response (per-user MFA flags vs. tenant-level status) and it does not.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single documented tenant_id (UUID, with pattern and length constraints), the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds no extra semantics such as whether parent/child tenant IDs are accepted or whether the caller's own tenant can be implicit.

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 resource and attribute ('MFA status for tenant') plus a secondary data point ('progress of TOTP enablement by users'), which no sibling tool covers. It is clearly distinguishable from the tenant/user/alert tools, though the phrase 'progress of TOTP enablement' stays abstract about what is actually returned.

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, no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing a tenant administrator context), and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling fetch_tenant_* tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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