acronis_search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds only the basic resource type and does not disclose search scope, whether deleted items may appear, result limits, or return shape beyond what the schema already says.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is perhaps too terse, but its structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 search tool with a nested query object and no output schema, the description does not explain what results look like, whether tenants and users are returned together, or how the required tenant context inside query affects behavior. It is incomplete given the tool's 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%, and the nested query parameters are fully documented there, including text, tenant, limit, and allow_deleted. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Searches for tenants and users.' This distinguishes it from the fetch_* siblings by implying text search rather than direct retrieval, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with acronis_fetch_tenant or acronis_fetch_user.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this search tool versus the many specific fetch tools for tenants and users. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions mentioned.

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