Get a Lucky certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that private keys are not returned, which sets expectations about the response. This adds meaningful context 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 description is a single concise sentence that states the purpose and the one behavioral caveat. It front-loads the main action and avoids any wasted words, making it easily scannable.

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 simple read-only lookup with a single parameter and full annotation coverage, the description mostly suffices. However, there is no output schema and no mention of error behavior (e.g., what happens if the key is not found), which may leave the agent uncertain about response handling. Still, the description covers the essential return characteristic (metadata, no private keys).

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% and the only parameter ('key') just has type and minLength. The description mentions 'by key' but does not explain what format the key takes or how it relates to certificate identity. It provides minimal semantic support for a single parameter, just enough to guess its purpose.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('compact certificate metadata by key'), and explicitly notes that private keys are not returned. This distinguishes it from other certificate-related tools like lucky_list_certs and lucky_bind_cert, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lucky_list_certs or lucky_add_custom_cert. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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