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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's real contribution is explaining what comes back: a signed issuance record and a 'freshly signed' status statement, which also implicitly accounts for idempotentHint=false. It further discloses a privacy behavior the schema cannot — the score appears only when the holder has chosen to show it — but stops short of describing failure behavior for an unknown or revoked id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the use case and followed by the return contents; nothing is padded. The one-word 'Free.' fragment is slightly abrupt but carries real cost information, so it earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does — issuance record, status statement, live status, conditional score. Combined with a fully documented single parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, only error/edge-case behavior for invalid ids is left unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already spells out the id format (type prefix, year, six-digit number). The description only restates that the id identifies the certificate and adds no new syntax, normalization, or error semantics, 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 ('check any certificate by its certificate_id') and then what the call produces: the signed issuance record plus a freshly signed status statement. That is enough to separate it from list_certificates (enumeration) and the declare/set update tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use to check any certificate by its certificate_id' implies the trigger (you have an id and want its status) and 'Free' hints this is a no-cost verification path, but there are no stated exclusions or explicit alternatives for cases like looking up unknown ids or listing certificates.

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