get-host

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context the annotations cannot supply (verification flag, data status), which matters because there is no output schema, though it does not describe error cases or how the verification flag is reported.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then routing rules. Every clause carries routing or scope information and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, alternatives and the gist of the return payload. It stops short of detailing the response fields or error behavior, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents host_id including the URL-encoded format example. The description adds nothing about the identifier's form or encoding, so this is the baseline case where structured data does the work.

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 and resource ("Get details for a specific host") and narrows it further by naming the payload an agent should expect: the verification flag and data status. It explicitly separates itself from list-hosts, start-verification and verify-host, so an agent can choose correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives positive usage (when the user wants the verification flag / data status of one host) and two explicit exclusions with named alternatives: use list-hosts to enumerate sites, use start-verification for the ownership check. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure.

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