UmbHost — Umbraco hosting storefront

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the returned content (positioning, credentials, version range, support model, attributed Trustpilot text/link). It does not state that this is a side-effect-free read or mention caching/static nature, so behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 that packs the purpose and the full content inventory without filler. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what the response will contain.

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?

Given a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is the sole spec of the return payload and does cover the expected content areas, including the attributed Trustpilot link. It could be slightly stronger by noting the response is static/vendor-authored with no side effects, but nothing essential is missing.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description conflicts with that.

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 resource (information about UmbHost as an Umbraco host) and enumerates exactly what it covers: positioning, credentials, version range, support model, and Trustpilot rating. It is clearly an informational tool, implicitly distinct from the transactional siblings (quote, begin_checkout, get_plan), but it never names or excludes any sibling 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 can infer it should call this when it needs background on the vendor, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use trigger, prerequisites, or statement of when a sibling like get_plan or quote would be preferable. No exclusions are 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the server-side cart seeding, the returned checkoutUrl, human payment, that no payment is taken and no order placed, and that prices exclude VAT. It does not cover idempotency/duplicate-call behavior, cart lifetime, or auth requirements, which are meaningful gaps for a cart-mutating tool.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then the critical disambiguation (human pays, no order placed). Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (checkoutUrl) and the safety profile (no payment, no order). It is nearly complete for a 7-parameter tool, though it leaves cart persistence/expiry and repeat-invocation behavior unstated.

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 compensate, and it does reasonably: it explains packageKey (plan key), siteDomain (the hostname the hosting runs on), and names the remaining concepts (billing cycle, config options, add-ons, optional domain registration). It stops short of key formats, currency codes, or the distinction between 'siteDomain' and the optional 'domain' registration.

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 ('Start an order for a configured hosting plan') and immediately scopes it as cart-seeding rather than order placement. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quote, get_plan, and order_status.

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 makes clear this is the commit-to-checkout step that follows configuration ('for a configured hosting plan') and that a human completes payment. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., use quote to preview pricing before committing, order_status to track an existing checkout), leaving that routing to inference.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context — currency defaults to GBP and the returned price excludes VAT — but omits other traits an agent would want: whether the lookup is authoritative/real-time, what happens on an invalid or non-registrable domain, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the currency default and VAT caveat. Every sentence carries information.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the pricing semantics well but leaves gaps: the structure of the availability/price response, the unit of the price (per year vs one-time), and behavior on invalid input are all unaddressed.

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 compensate. It does for currency (ISO format, defaults to GBP, superseding the schema's null default), but says nothing about the required domain parameter's accepted format (bare name vs FQDN vs URL). Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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: check domain availability plus registration price, scoped to UmbHost. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (list_plans, begin_checkout, quote, order_status) in substance, but the description never names or contrasts an alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 prerequisites, and no routing advice. A reader can infer it belongs before a registration flow, but nothing addresses the overlap with the sibling quote tool or when this should be preferred over a checkout flow.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the null-on-unknown-key behavior, but says nothing about read-only semantics, whether currency conversion is applied, error handling beyond null, or rate limits.

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 no filler, front-loading what the tool returns and ending with the important null edge case. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the needed work of enumerating what comes back (per-cycle prices, config options, add-ons) and covers the unknown-key case. It falls short only on the currency parameter, which is left unexplained.

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% for 2 parameters. The description clarifies that "key" identifies a plan, but the "currency" parameter is never mentioned in text and has no schema description, leaving its meaning and allowed values completely undocumented.

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 ("Get one UmbHost hosting plan") and scopes it to a single item by key, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_plans. However, it never names list_plans or quote, so sibling differentiation is left to inference rather than made explicit.

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: the caller is expected to already have a plan key. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like list_plans (browse) or quote (price an order), and no exclusions or prerequisites are 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: prices are live, are quoted before VAT, and default to GBP. It is silent on read-only status, auth/rate-limit requirements, and whether results are paginated, so the safety and access profile remains undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the resource and what it returns, then the parameter behavior. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers return content (live prices, resources, config options, add-ons) and the parameter well. Pagination/result-size behavior is the only notable omission, which is minor for this kind of catalog call.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: it marks the currency as optional, lists six allowed ISO codes, and states the GBP default. The only gap is ambiguity over whether codes outside the listed six are accepted, which slightly undercuts the enumerated list.

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?

It gives a specific verb (List) and resource (UmbHost buyable Umbraco hosting/email plans) and enumerates what the listing includes (prices, resources, config options, add-ons), which makes the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_plan or quote, leaving the list-vs-single-plan distinction to be inferred from the verb.

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: a plan-listing tool is naturally the browse step before get_plan/begin_checkout, and it notes prices exclude VAT, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent gets a reasonable sense of context but nothing that routes it decisively among the six siblings.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful behavioral trait: the possible result states (started, awaiting payment, paid, not available), which tells the agent what to expect back. It omits read-only/auth guarantees and what 'not available' concretely signals, so it is good but not complete.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the status enumeration. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the cartKey link and the return states but leaves the currency parameter and any auth/error semantics unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured support.

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% for 2 parameters. The description clarifies cartKey by linking it to begin_checkout, adding real meaning beyond the bare 'string/uuid' schema, but the currency parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (check) and resource (cart status) and ties itself to the sibling begin_checkout, which creates the cart being queried. The enumerated status values make the tool's scope immediately distinguishable from siblings like quote or get_plan.

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 phrase 'a cart started with begin_checkout' establishes the precondition for use and implicitly routes the agent from begin_checkout to this tool. It does not state any when-not conditions or alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that prices EXCLUDE VAT (added at payment by location), that non-GBP is a live-rate conversion of a GBP base, that the domain is priced separately and annually, and that the result matches the site and cart. It stops short of auth requirements, error modes, or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavioral caveats. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place by disclosing pricing semantics; only mild redundancy between 'matches the site' and 'the way the pricing calculator does'.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by explaining what the estimate represents (matches site and cart, excludes VAT, currency conversion). The main gap is that required parameter semantics (packageKey, valid currency/cycle strings) are not covered.

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% at the top level, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for currency (live-rate conversion), billingCycle, domain (annual, separate line), and configSelections (omit for defaults), and addons are named. However, the required packageKey is never explained and accepted values/formats for currency and billingCycle are absent.

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: it prices a configured hosting order the way the website's pricing calculator does, enumerating base plan + config options + add-ons. This is far more specific than a tautology, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like get_plan, list_plans, or begin_checkout, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only guidance is an operational note ('Omit configSelections to use the plan's defaults'), which is parameter behavior, not usage scope. An agent must guess how this relates to get_plan or begin_checkout in a workflow.

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