get_public_key_certificate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that only public material is returned, private keys are never exposed, and the certificate/chain are base64-encoded. This is valuable behavioral and safety information beyond what the input schema reveals.

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 compact and front-loaded: the call intent appears immediately, followed by return format and parameter semantics. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, encoding, public-only guarantee, and parameter format. Minor gaps like potential errors or the exact shape of the chain are not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining that key_identifier accepts an ARN or alias of the asymmetric key, which is essential semantic information. It could add examples or clarify alias formats, but it sufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('fetch') and identifies the exact resource: the certificate and chain for an APC asymmetric key. It further clarifies the purpose (handing the public half to a counterparty for TR-34/ECDH, or checking current APC-held material), making it distinguishable from related sibling tools like get_key or get_certificate_signing_request.

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 gives clear, concrete use cases: fetching public key material for TR-34/ECDH exchanges or checking what APC currently holds. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but the context provided is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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