infomaniak_find_site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns a specific ID set and the full site object, and it 'short-circuits on the first match,' explaining the performance behavior. It does not disclose edge cases like no-match behavior, but it is transparent enough given the annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and return value, then provides usage guidance and performance rationale. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, the description covers the remaining context: when to use the tool, what it returns, and how it compares to alternatives. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the high-level purpose and return fields, but the parameter semantics (domain type, optional account_id restriction) are already documented in the schema. No additional meaning is provided that is not in the input 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Locate a domain (e.g. broz.be) in the Infomaniak account tree.' It clearly states what it returns and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as a prerequisite for tools requiring hosting_id and site_id, and by contrasting it with the more expensive list_hostings + list_sites approach.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this BEFORE any tool that requires hosting_id + site_id ... when you only know the domain name.' It also names the alternative (calling list_hostings + list_sites) and explains the efficiency advantage, making the right invocation context clear.

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