acronis_fetch_tenant_usages

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 could have spent its words on real behavior: what the metrics cover, whether results are paginated, whether they are time-scoped, or what shape the response takes. It adds none of that beyond restating that data is fetched.

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?

The single sentence contains no filler and is front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely tight writing. The sentence count is appropriate; the content is not.

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, the description is the only place an agent could learn what 'usage metrics' actually contain, and it says nothing. Combined with a nested parameter object and no usage guidance, the definition leaves the agent guessing at both the return content and selection criteria.

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 and both query filters (editions, usage_names), so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the baseline expectation at this coverage level.

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 ('common usage metrics of the tenant'), so the general intent is clear. However, 'common usage metrics' is undefined and there is no differentiation from nearby siblings such as acronis_fetch_tenant, acronis_fetch_tenant_users, or acronis_fetch_tenant_mfa_status, which an agent must distinguish when choosing a tenant-scoped fetch.

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 mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative among the many tenant-scoped sibling 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.