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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by stating that only metadata/approved fields are returned and that secrets, contacts and original files are excluded. It omits any statement about pagination behaviour, which matters given limit/offset.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the data-scope constraint. 'Through the existing application' is the only filler phrase.

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?

With no output schema, three undocumented parameters, and no stated scope (all tenant certificates vs. the caller's own), an agent lacks the information needed to page correctly or judge whether results are complete. The return-field exclusions are helpful but do not cover the missing pagination and scope semantics.

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 0% and all three parameters (limit, query, offset) are undocumented in the schema. The description says nothing about what 'query' matches, the 50/100 limit bounds, or how offset paginates, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; only the conventional parameter names make it partially inferable.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Read authorised certificates') and narrows the payload to metadata/approved fields. However, it never differentiates itself from neighbours like get_certificate_metadata, list_expiring_credentials, list_overdue_credentials, or list_credential_types, so an agent cannot tell which listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative despite a crowded sibling set of credential and certificate listing tools. The phrase 'through the existing application' adds no routing information.

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