Get Hosting

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns null when the domain has no hosting and it enumerates the field set returned when hosting exists—useful given no output schema.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and scope before the null case and the deploy_site relationship. Every clause 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 one-param, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field list and the null case, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It lacks only explicit guidance on alternative status-check tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'for a domain' and adds no format, validation, or lookup nuance beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Secure Static Hosting status) scoped to a domain, and enumerates the returned fields (plan, server, trial, expiry, auto-renew). It even distinguishes itself from deploy_site by naming the deployment relationship, so an agent can place it among the many sibling tools.

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 clause 'When ACTIVE, deploy_site publishes site files to it' implies the workflow (check status before deploying) but never states when to call this versus alternatives like get_domain or list_hosting_plans. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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