Get virtual host

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes document root and domain configuration, which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behaviors (e.g., error conditions, authorization requirements). It does not contradict 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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key detail about the return content. There is no wasted text or redundancy; it is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-id operation.

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 retrieval tool with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (document root and domain configuration), and relies on the schema for parameters and annotations for safety. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (userId, vhostId, hostingId) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one virtual host by id'), and distinguishes it from likely siblings like list or get by hosting. It adds detail about the return contents (document root and domain configuration), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single virtual host by id, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as ws_hosting_vhost_list or ws_hosting_get. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, only the implied use case.

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