get_hosted_access

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that no network call and no payment occur, that the rail is billed per verified match in USD, and exactly what the response contains (rail URL, price, what it adds). An agent knows the call is instantaneous, free, and side-effect free.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core identity, then the return/behavioral facts. The pricing parenthetical ('pay-per-event, USD, billed only on a verified match') is slightly dense and marketing-flavored, but it is the substance the caller is asking for.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return — and it does, enumerating rail URL, price, and added capabilities. For a zero-parameter, read-only info tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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 ('Describe') and a precise resource ('the hosted batch verification rail ... beyond this free server'), and the framing immediately separates it from the sibling verification tools: this returns information about a rail rather than performing verification itself.

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?

Usage context is clear — call it when the user needs high-volume/batch verification beyond what this free server offers, or needs the rail URL and pricing. It stops short of explicitly naming verify_business as the alternative for actual on-server checks, so routing is inferable rather than stated.

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