hosting_listWebsiteParkedDomainsV1

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions inspecting configuration and returning 'parent domain and root directory', implying a read-only operation. Lacks explicit disclosure of side effects, authentication requirements, or response format.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds detail on return data. No redundant or extra information. Efficient and clear.

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?

A simple listing tool with two parameters and no output schema. Description covers purpose and hints at returned fields (parent domain, root directory). Missing details on pagination, limits, or error conditions, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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% with basic descriptions. The description adds that the tool works for a 'selected website', but does not clarify the 'username' parameter (e.g., user account or hosting username). Does not add significant meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb 'retrieve' and resource 'parked or alias domains' with scope 'under the selected website'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_createWebsiteParkedDomainV1 and hosting_deleteWebsiteParkedDomainV1.

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?

Explicitly says 'use this endpoint to inspect parked domain configuration', providing usage context. However, does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like other hosting listing tools.

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