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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses the asynchronous/polling nature of the tool, the 'not yet uploaded' pending state and its remedy, that the final payload mirrors check_coi, and mandatory presentation obligations (attribute to Certgio, include the result link, non-advice disclaimer, terms URL). These are behaviors an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the pending-state handling, then presentation rules. Every sentence is operational, though the closing legal/terms sentence is boilerplate that dilutes the functional content slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return semantics by reference to check_coi plus the intermediate pending state, which is the key ambiguity for a polling tool. It does not describe the result's structure, but the sibling reference largely compensates.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents upload_id with a 22-char length. The description adds provenance — the value must be the one check_coi returned — which is meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though no format details are added.

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 (result of a certificate check) and immediately scopes it to checks 'started with check_coi without a file', which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling check_coi. An agent can tell which tool to call without inspecting either schema.

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 gives clear usage context: pass the upload_id returned by check_coi, and if the certificate hasn't been uploaded, ask the user to open the link and retry. That is effectively a when-to-use and failure-recovery procedure. It stops short of explicit polling guidance (how often to retry, when to give up), so it is not a full 5.

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