Account Overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly indicates a read operation ('Get') and discloses what data will be returned (counts and statuses across service types). It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or caveats, but as a no-parameter getter, this level of transparency is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that opens with the core action and resource, then enumerates the included categories. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job naming the specific data categories (VPS count, domains, websites, mail, subscriptions) and their statuses. While the exact response structure is not spelled out, this is sufficient for a simple no-parameter overview tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema properties are empty. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info, which is appropriate since there are none.

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 provides a comprehensive overview of all Hostinger services, enumerating specific categories (VPS count, domains, websites, mail, subscriptions) and their statuses. This distinguishes it from individual resource-specific tools like vps_list or hosting_websites_list, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 conveys clear context: use when a high-level, cross-service summary is needed. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the scope ('all Hostinger services') implies this is an aggregating overview, and the sibling tool names make it obvious that specific tools handle detailed operations.

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