combell_linux_hostings_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing exactly what data the call returns, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention error/not-found behavior or authentication, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses a semicolon-separated list to pack in the returned data categories. Every clause adds value and there is 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the main response categories: webspace size/usage, IP, FTP/SSH status and usernames, PHP version, websites with host headers and SSL settings, and linked MySQL databases. It could mention error behavior or the singleness of the result, but for a simple get-by-domain operation the description is sufficiently 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%, with the single parameter domain_name described as 'The Linux hosting domain name'. The description reinforces that the resource is a Linux hosting but adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Get the details of a Linux hosting') and then enumerates the exact categories of information returned: webspace, IP, FTP/SSH status, PHP version, websites with host headers and SSL, and MySQL databases. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like combell_linux_hostings_list (listing) and the set_* mutation tools.

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 the retrieval intent clear and implies use for inspecting a single Linux hosting by domain name. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as combell_linux_hostings_list, but the contrast with the sibling names is strong enough that an agent can infer the right context.

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