Show AI option status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it confirms this is a read of 'current' status, scopes it to the Hostinger Tools plugin, and explains the single-vs-all filtering behavior. It does not describe return format or pagination, but that is a minor gap for a read-only status 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 description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, the second explains the filter behavior, and the final sentence covers how to obtain the path identifier. No word is wasted, and it does not repeat the title or annotation information.

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?

Given the tool is a read-only status check with no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: scope, optional filtering, and identifier provenance. The main omissions are the meaning of `username` and an explicit pointer to the sibling setter tool, but the agent has enough to invoke this tool correctly with the schema and annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for `software` by explaining it is the WordPress installation ID obtainable from a specific endpoint, and it clarifies the `option` parameter's filtering effect. However, `username` is left as the unhelpful 'username parameter' in the schema and not enriched by the description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Show the current AI option status for the Hostinger Tools plugin on the specified WordPress installation.' It clearly identifies the scope and behavior, and the phrase 'current status' distinguishes it from the sibling setter, hosting_setAIOptionStatusV1. The optional filtering by `option` adds further precision.

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 clear guidance on when to use it: filter by `option` for a single result or omit it for all options. It also tells the user where to obtain the required `software` identifier via the installations endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives like hosting_setAIOptionStatusV1, but the read-only intent is clear.

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