Hosting statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context by explaining what each `kind` value maps to (size=disk usage, domain=per-domain traffic, ftp=FTP activity), which enriches understanding beyond the schema enum labels. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the `kind` parameter without unnecessary fluff. Every word 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 simple read-only stats tool with three parameters and strong annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose and key parameter semantics, but does not mention the return format or any error conditions. Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on what the response contains would improve completeness, but it is not severely lacking.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds semantic value by detailing what each `kind` enum value represents, which the schema only labels as 'Which statistics series to return'. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool retrieves usage statistics for a hosting service, with `kind` selecting the series (size, domain, ftp). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like ws_hosting_get (configuration) and ws_db_stats/ws_mail_stats/ws_vps_stats (other resources).

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 implies the tool is for statistics via the phrase 'Usage statistics', but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Context from sibling names suggests it, but no direct guidance is given.

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