hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the rate limit ('10 requests per minute'), the constraint about alternatives requiring single TLD, and the TLD format requirement ('without leading dot'). It doesn't mention authentication needs or error handling, but covers important operational constraints.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the core function, explaining multi-TLD capability, specifying the alternatives constraint, clarifying TLD format, disclosing rate limits, and providing usage context. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 read-only availability check tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints (rate limits, parameter interactions), and format requirements. The main gap is lack of information about response format or what 'availability' means specifically, but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the relationship between 'tlds' and 'with_alternatives' (single TLD needed for alternatives), and clarifies TLD format. However, it doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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 with specific verbs ('check availability') and resources ('domain names across multiple TLDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'domains_purchaseNewDomainV1' by focusing on verification rather than purchase, and from 'domains_getDomainListV1' by checking availability rather than listing owned domains.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to verify domain availability before purchase' establishes the primary context. It also specifies when to use alternatives: 'If you want alternative domains with response, provide only one TLD and set `with_alternatives` to `true`' gives clear conditional usage rules.

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