combell_windows_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, and the description is fully consistent with them (a pure read). The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains — webspace, IP, FTP user, .NET app pool, sites/bindings, MSSQL databases — which is the key behavioral context an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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 states the purpose and then packs the return details into a compact, comma-separated enumeration. There is zero filler; 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 one schema-covered parameter, strong safety annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response — which it does with a detailed field list. It falls just short of a 5 because it omits any error/edge-case behavior for a non-existent domain and includes no routing guidance, though the core use case is fully 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 100%: the schema already documents domain_name as 'The Windows hosting domain name.' The description adds no parameter-format or usage semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get the details of a Windows hosting' — and enumerates the returned scope (webspace size/usage, IP, FTP username, application pool, sites with bindings, MSSQL databases). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like combell_windows_hostings_list (list vs single get) and combell_linux_hostings_get (Windows vs Linux).

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: call this when you need the details of one specific Windows hosting. However, the description never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as combell_windows_hostings_list for enumerating hostings or combell_linux_hostings_get for Linux resources, leaving the agent to infer the routing from tool names and the sibling list.

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