Get an SSL certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the specific data returned, which is useful, but does not disclose error behavior or other edge cases. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second gives id provenance and sibling routing. Every phrase earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned data, id sources, and directs to a sibling for validation-related queries. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are well-documented with origins ('from the certificates eurodns_ssl_get_subscription returns' and 'from the list eurodns_ssl_get_subscription returns when called without an id'). The description merely restates this provenance, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('one certificate of an SSL subscription'), enumerates the returned fields (common name, SANs, validity dates, issuance status), and differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming eurodns_ssl_get_validation and referencing eurodns_ssl_get_subscription as the source of ids.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Both ids come from eurodns_ssl_get_subscription.' It also names an alternative for a different need: 'to see how a name is being validated, use eurodns_ssl_get_validation,' effectively providing a when-not condition.

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