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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with asking a question, so no contradiction. The description adds real context beyond annotations: which sites are reachable (public sites) and the two auth paths. It is silent on failure behavior for a wrong passcode, latency/cost of an AI answer, and what the response looks like.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the credential rule. No filler. The parenthetical example earns its place by disambiguating the `site` parameter.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers target and auth adequately but leaves the answer's form (text? JSON? cites sources?) and error conditions undocumented. Adequate to invoke, thin for anticipating results.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and mostly does: it explains the `site` slug format with a worked example, that `passcode` applies to protected sites, and that `owner_key` is for the caller's own site. Only `question` is left unstated, which is largely self-evident from the name.

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 and resource: ask a public Hostlet site's AI a question, and clarifies the target with a concrete example ("night-owls" maps to night-owls.hostlet.ai). Sibling tools (change_site, check_site) are mutations/checks rather than Q&A, so the purpose is distinguishable, though the description never names an alternative 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?

Gives a conditional credential rule: pass `passcode` if the site has one, or `owner_key` for your own site. That is useful usage context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over inspecting/changing the site, nor on what to do if neither credential is available.

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