Hostamir

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

Annotations already signal a safe, open-world read (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing what comes back: availability, first-year and renewal prices, and an order link. With no output schema, this return-value summary is the main source of behavioral context, though rate limits or failure modes are unmentioned.

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 tight sentences, with the core purpose and return content front-loaded before the input guidance. No padding, though the parenthetical example slightly duplicates the schema example.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, input format, and output contents. Only minor gaps remain, such as pricing currency caveats already stated and the absence of any note on behavior when a domain is invalid.

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%, so both parameters are documented with examples and the default ext of .com. The description's 'full name or name plus up to 5 extensions' largely restates the schema, adding only the either/or framing. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (checks whether a domain can be registered) and even summarizes the return payload (first-year and renewal prices in BDT, order link). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling domain_prices, which also appears to be price-related, so an agent could confuse the two.

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: check availability before ordering. The second sentence gives input-format guidance (full name or name plus up to 5 extensions), which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus domain_prices or order_link, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: prices are yearly and recurring, quoted in BDT, split across register/renew/transfer, and first-year pricing may be discounted — a caveat an agent would otherwise misreport.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core payload (prices, currency, price types, batch limit) front-loaded and the pricing caveat second.

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 no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly and to interpret results (yearly, BDT, three price types). Only the shape of the per-extension response and handling of invalid extensions are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It clarifies that the string array holds domain extensions and caps the count at 40 (mirroring maxItems), but it gives no format guidance (e.g. '.com' vs 'com') and no hint about behavior with unknown extensions, leaving a real gap.

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-plus-resource: returns current yearly prices in BDT for register, renew, and transfer across domain extensions. It is clearly distinct from siblings like check_domain (availability) and list_plans, though it never names or contrasts them 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 only implied — an agent infers this is a price-lookup step before ordering, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of check_domain or order_link as adjacent steps, and no prerequisites stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the kinds of data returned (prices, inclusions, suitability, order links), but it does not say the catalog is static, whether the list is exhaustive, or how ordering links behave.

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 no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the payload details. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, but every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only catalog tool with a fully described enum and no output schema, the description does the important remaining work of previewing what the response contains. Only the absence of sibling routing guidance keeps it from being complete.

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 single 'type' enum is documented with its default in the schema, so the description has nothing to compensate for. It adds no extra meaning about the hosting/vps distinction beyond what the enum already conveys, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 the resource concretely (web hosting and VPS plans) and enumerates the payload an agent will get back: BDT monthly/yearly prices, inclusions, target audience, and order links. That is far more specific than the tool name alone and separates it from domain_prices and order_link, though the verb ('list') is only implied by the name rather than stated.

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 statement of when to call this versus siblings such as domain_prices (for domain pricing) or order_link (for actually placing an order). The mention of 'order links' hints at a relationship with order_link but the description never says to use this tool for browsing and order_link for purchasing, so the agent must infer routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for adding real context beyond them: the customer completes the order and pays on clients.hostamir.com, so no purchase happens through the tool itself. It does not say what is returned (a URL string?), whether links expire or are single-use, or whether repeated calls create multiple links.

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 sentences with no filler, and the payment-location detail is packed into the second sentence efficiently. Minor weakness: it opens with a noun phrase rather than the action, so the most decision-relevant fact (this tool creates a link) is not front-loaded.

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 should at least say that the result is a URL the agent hands to the customer, and it only gestures at this. The external-payment note is a genuine completeness win, but the absence of guidance on combining the four optional parameters leaves a real gap for a 4-parameter, zero-required tool.

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 100% and the schema already documents every parameter, including the annual discount and the domain examples, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that plans are monthly or yearly and that domains can be registered or transferred, adding no syntax, format, or interaction rules (e.g., can plan and register_domain be combined?) beyond the schema.

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 the resource (an order link) and enumerates the three concrete outcomes it can produce: ordering a plan, registering a domain, transferring a domain. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like check_domain, domain_prices, and list_plans. It loses a point because the operative verb (that the tool generates/returns a link) is only implied by the title and the noun-phrase opening.

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?

It conveys the general situation (a customer wants to buy something), but gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as list_plans or domain_prices for pre-purchase lookups. Critically, with 4 optional parameters and 0 required, it never explains that plan/billing vs. register_domain vs. transfer_domain are distinct modes, leaving the agent to guess which combination to send.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-domain read. The description adds that the content spans policy and post-purchase topics, but it does not disclose the shape of what comes back (a single document, a list of articles, or a summary) or whether content is static. With annotations covering safety, this is a moderate but not rich addition.

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, front-loaded sentence enumerating the covered topics with zero filler. Every clause maps to a real question an agent might route here, and nothing is repeated from the title.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the topical scope thoroughly enough that an agent can decide whether its question falls inside it. The remaining gap is that it does not indicate the form of the returned content, but for a static knowledge lookup that is a minor omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side, and it correctly does not waste words on nonexistent arguments.

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 — customer-facing support content about Hostamir (contact, hours, payment, refunds, backups, post-order flow, service management) — so the agent knows this is the informational/FAQ lookup rather than an action tool. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (check_domain, domain_prices, list_plans, order_link), though it does so implicitly by topic rather than by explicit contrast.

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 topic list implies when to reach for this tool (any question about contacting the host, payments, refunds, or post-purchase management), but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead for…' statement. The agent must infer routing from the topics covered and from sibling names.

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