get_certificate_details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's note that 'detail fields are intentionally flexible' adds valuable context about response variability. No contradiction with 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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the core action and places the flexibility caveat second. 'Intentionally' adds nuance rather than fluff, though the phrasing could be more specific.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: the conceptual purpose, the parameter source, and output variability. Explicit sibling differentiation is missing but not critical for this simple tool.

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 schema already explains that order_book_id is the Avanza order-book ID from discovery, not instrumentId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Get extended certificate details') and signals a distinction from get_certificate_info via 'beyond info'. However, 'extended' and 'flexible' remain vague, so it doesn't fully specify what is included.

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?

'Beyond info' implies this is for richer detail than the basic info endpoint, but it never names the sibling tool or states explicit conditions for choosing this over get_certificate_info or filter_certificates. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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