list_hotspot_packages

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

The text implies a read-only listing operation and adds no warning flags, so the only behavior conveyed is that package data is returned. With no annotations, the description does not disclose pagination, filtering, or error/response details, but these are not critical for a safe list tool.

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 first sentence states the operation immediately, and the second compactly covers both parameter formats. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description fully explains the two required parameters and identifies what the tool lists; for a simple read-only list operation this is sufficient. It could mention output shape or pagination, but the lack is minor given the operation's straightforwardness.

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?

Both parameters are defined beyond the bare schema: 'host' accepts console name, ID, or MAC:numericId composite ID, and 'site' accepts name or ID. This compensates fully for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 names a concrete operation ('List'), a specific resource type ('guest portal billing packages'), and a scope ('for a site'). This clearly separates it from singular get_hotspot_package and from voucher-related siblings.

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?

It states that the operation is scoped to a site and documents the required host/site identifiers, so an agent knows the basic condition for calling it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools such as get_hotspot_package or list_hotspot_vouchers.

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