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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that each call consumes a token and creates an XBOSS task with stored results, explicitly warning the call is 'not purely read-only' – consistent with the annotation. However, that disclosure is buried in mixed-language prose and never resolves what, if anything, is mutated from the caller's perspective, leaving the practical consequence vague.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is bloated with a paragraph of Korean boilerplate about XBOSS tasks and provider confirmation procedures, plus tangential guidance about anonymous 'taste' calls and a provider-specific idempotency_key that this tool does not accept. Several sentences do not earn their place for a zero-required-parameter list call.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read-style listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers auth requirements, what is returned (slugs), the token cost, and idempotency handling. The main omission is any indication of the response shape or ordering of the nine templates, which an agent must guess.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by explaining when to generate a key, when to reuse it (only to recover a lost response), and that a new execution needs a new key. It also clarifies that a provider-specific idempotency_key is a different field, though that distinction adds some confusion since no such parameter exists here.

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?

The first two sentences name a specific verb and resource (list certificate templates that can be applied for) and even quantify the set (9), then tie the returned slugs directly to the cert_template parameter of the apply tool. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like certificate__list or certificate__apply_with_template without opening any 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?

It makes the downstream use case explicit: the slugs returned here are 'exactly the values accepted by cert_template; nothing else is,' which tells an agent to call this before a template-based application. It also states no credential/login is required. It stops short of an explicit 'call this first / do not call if' formulation or naming a competing sibling by name.

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