Show maintenance 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 context about the target scope and how to find the identifier, but does not disclose behavioral details such as return format or error behavior, which the annotations do not cover either.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential identifier-sourcing context, keeping the most relevant information front-loaded.

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 status tool, the description covers the main action and how to obtain the primary parameter. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify the required 'username' parameter, and with no output schema it does not hint at the expected response shape, leaving minor ambiguity for an agent.

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 value beyond the schema by specifying that the 'software' identifier can be obtained from GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/installations and corresponds to the 'id' field. However, the 'username' parameter remains only vaguely described as 'username parameter'.

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 ('Show'), a clear resource ('maintenance mode status'), and a precise scope ('specified WordPress installation'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling hosting_toggleMaintenanceModeV1, which changes the mode rather than reporting it.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and explains how to obtain the crucial 'software' identifier from the installations list endpoint. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like toggleMaintenanceMode, but the read-only purpose is self-evident and the identifier sourcing guidance is practical.

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