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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the two credential-passing mechanisms and the security guarantee that credentials are never placed in URLs or echoed in errors, but says nothing about response shape, error behavior, or token expiry.

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 purpose, and each one carries information (scope, auth methods, privacy guarantee). No filler, though the auth guidance could be condensed into the schema rather than the description.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the annotations plus description cover enough to invoke it correctly. It is not complete, though: the description omits what a 'task' contains, error behavior for an expired or out-of-scope token, and why no parameters are required.

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%, so the credential parameter is already documented as a writeOnly private v5c_ capability, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the alternate Authorization-header path for supplying it, a modest clarification rather than new semantic detail about the value itself.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the exact task'), scoped by the v5c_ token, so an agent knows this is a scoped read of a single task. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like certification_state, certification_status, or certification_replay, leaving the agent to infer which certification-read tool applies.

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 description never states when to use this tool rather than certification_state/certification_status, nor any prerequisite such as already holding a one-version token. It only explains how to authenticate, which is parameter guidance, not usage context.

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