infomaniak_find_site

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond these by noting it is 'significantly cheaper than calling list_hostings + list_sites manually because it short-circuits on the first match.' This provides valuable performance insight without contradiction.

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 very concise: two sentences that cover purpose, return structure, usage guidance, and performance note. Every part adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and result.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, how parameters work, and why it's efficient. No gaps remain for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter semantics: for 'domain', it accepts root/sub-domains and Punycode; for 'account_id', it explains the optionality and scope of lookup (scanning all accounts vs. restricting). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: to locate a domain in the Infomaniak account tree. It specifies the verb 'locate', the resource 'domain', and lists the returned fields (account_id, hosting_id, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_hostings and list_sites, which are more expensive alternatives.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this BEFORE any tool that requires hosting_id + site_id (get_certificate, request_certificate, list_databases, etc.) when you only know the domain name.' It also contrasts with manual alternatives, making the usage context very clear.

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