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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that each record includes the public serial, and says nothing about pagination behaviour, volume of results, or authorization scope beyond the annotations' safety hints.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core scope stated first and the sibling disambiguation second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage in the schema, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to establish purpose and sibling scope, which it does. Remaining gaps (result volume, ordering guarantees beyond 'newest first' in the schema) are minor.

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% and all four parameters (limit, offset, courseId, identityId) are documented with defaults and filtering semantics in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying the returned set is issued certificates, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists certificates this workspace has actually issued') and adds a concrete distinguishing detail (the public serial). It explicitly names the sibling list_certificates and how it differs ('lists certificate designs'), so an agent can pick correctly without opening 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?

The description routes the agent between the two similar list tools by contrasting issued certificates with certificate designs, which is the key ambiguity. It stops short of stating explicit conditions such as when to filter by courseId or identityId, or when issued certificates are absent (e.g. revoked), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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