agency-hosting_listAvailableDatacentersV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the behavior of returning a `pinger_url` and how to use it for measuring latency. It doesn't mention any side effects (none expected for a list) or requirements like authentication. Since it's a simple read operation, the provided context is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, the second adds actionable detail on how to use the returned data. No filler, every word 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the availability of `pinger_url`, and the specific downstream use of the datacenter `code` in website creation. No gaps in expected behavior or usage.

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% and the only parameter (`order_id`) is described as 'Agency Plan order ID' in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline of 3 given high coverage.

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 lists datacenters for provisioning a new website on a specific Agency Plan hosting order, with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('datacenters'). It distinguishes from the sibling VPS_getDataCenterListV1 by explicitly specifying 'Agency Plan hosting order'.

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 explains when to use it: before creating a website setup, to pick the nearest datacenter via ping. It implies the alternative (VPS tool) by scope but does not explicitly name it. Provides practical guidance on using `pinger_url` to compare latency, which is helpful for the intended workflow.

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