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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one non-obvious trait: that the document is represented only by a SHA-256 hash and no file is transmitted. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, whether the entry is verified or pending, or what happens to the record afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant restatement of the tool name. It is tight and every clause carries information, though for an 8-parameter mutation it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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?

Eight parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema leave the agent guessing about parameter formats, permission needs, and result shape. The description covers only one of eight fields and one behavioral constraint, which is insufficient for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only doc_sha256 receives semantic grounding ('SHA-256; no file upload'); type, state, issuer, number, issue_date, and expiry_date are left entirely undefined, including expected formats and whether 'state' means region or status.

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 ('Add a cert/licence') plus the scope of what is being added (metadata + optional document hash). A sibling like list_cert_types is clearly the lookup counterpart, though the description never names it. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from other mutation siblings such as add_referee or add_role.

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 parenthetical 'no file upload' implicitly tells the agent when not to attempt document attachment, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., a valid cert type from list_cert_types) or on when to prefer request_issuer_confirmation for a verified certificate. Usage is only implied.

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