Get a database agent host sub-resource

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-destructive read, and the description reinforces this with 'Fetch'. The reachability caveat is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, but the description does not mention pagination or filtering behavior despite the presence of page, per_page, and search parameters, which could affect how the returned data is consumed.

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 concise and well-structured, conveying the tool's purpose, the available resource facets, and the key reachability caveat in just two sentences. There is no redundancy or extraneous 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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward sub-resource fetch, but it does not explain the relationship to the sibling get_database_agent_host tool or clarify what a typical response contains. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more context about the response shape or usage scenario would improve completeness.

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 schema provides solid descriptions for all parameters, and the description adds value by mapping the resource enum values to their human-readable meanings (database instances, remaining capacity, agent config, live system overview/stats). It also clarifies which resource values depend on agent reachability, going slightly 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 clearly states the tool fetches one facet of a database agent host and enumerates the available facets (instances, capacity, config, system overview/stats). It is specific and easily distinguished from sibling tools like calagopus_get_database_agent_host, which presumably returns the full host object.

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 useful guidance that the instances, capacity, and system facets require the agent to be reachable, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over calagopus_get_database_agent_host or calagopus_list_database_agent_hosts, leaving the distinction to be inferred from naming and context.

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