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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: the call is free, statuses are 'live', and the response is a 'freshly signed statement' naming the latest certificate per type — which matters for anything that verifies provenance.

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 action and immediately followed by the cost and the return shape. Minimal waste; the only slight friction is that 'list every certificate' and 'a statement naming the latest certificate of each type' need a second read to reconcile.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is describing what comes back — and the description does that ('freshly signed statement naming the latest certificate of each type'). Only the relationship to the sibling list_certificates is unaddressed.

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 single parameter is documented as 'a wallet address: returns the certificates it holds,' so the schema already does this work. The description refers to an 'agent' without adding address format, network, or failure-case detail, so it adds essentially nothing over the schema — baseline 3.

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 concrete verb ('list') and resource ('every certificate an agent holds') plus a qualifier ('with each one's live status'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_certificates, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 opening 'Use to list...' gives an implied when-to-use context, and 'Free' signals this is a no-cost read worth preferring over paid paths. However, there is no when-not guidance and no sibling alternative named, so routing between this and list_certificates is left to inference.

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