get_hotspot_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (get) but gives no details about safety, permissions, side effects, or response format. There is no mention that this is a read-only operation, any required authorization, or what happens if the package is not found. The description is minimal and lacks meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact and efficient. The opening sentence states the purpose, followed by concise per-parameter definitions. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is easy to parse. No redundant or filler content exists.

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 simple getter with three required string parameters, the description covers the input semantics adequately. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return value, error scenarios, or any special conditions. Given the tool's simplicity, the absence of response details is a notable gap, but the core invocation context is sufficiently described.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter explanations are critical. It clearly defines each parameter: host (console name, ID, or composite ID), site (name or ID), and package_id (hotspot package ID). This provides essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not elaborate on formats for site or package_id beyond basic identification.

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 action: 'Get a single hotspot billing package by ID.' It specifies the resource (hotspot billing package) and the scope (single, by ID). This distinguishes it from list_hotspot_packages, which retrieves multiple packages, even though the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the relationship to list_hotspot_packages or any scenarios where this specific getter is preferable. Context is only implied by the verb 'get' and the singular 'single,' leaving the agent to infer usage.

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