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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial non-duplicated context: the first call is not executed, arguments changes invalidate the token, the token expires in 10 minutes and works once, links live 15 minutes, files kept 7 days, and privacy_disclosure controls RRN visibility. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 critical prerequisites and confirmation flow are correctly front-loaded, but the description rambles into a long anonymous recovery_receipt / xdata__job__result tangent that is only tangentially about issuing this certificate. That middle-to-end block dilutes focus and could be condensed to a single sentence about expired links.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return surface: a download link, artifacts[] with download_url valid 15 minutes, 7-day retention, and the fallback via xdata__job__result. An agent has everything needed to invoke, confirm, and retrieve the result.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description adds real semantic weight by explaining that pre_consent must be true and that privacy_disclosure=N hides the resident registration number. It says nothing extra about certificate_purpose, receive_method, or member_type, so it doesn't fully supersede the schema.

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 description clearly states the verb and resource: it issues a business registration certificate and returns a download link. It does not differentiate against the closely named sibling gov24__local_tax_certificate__issue or the hometax certificate siblings, so an agent must infer which certificate tool to use.

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 states a hard prerequisite (prior gov24__session__login with same account_link_id) and an explicit two-step sequence: first call returns a preview, then re-call with the token only after user agreement. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the hometax/gov24 local-tax certificate siblings.

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