Get the validation of a certificate name

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds mild behavioral context by indicating the tool reports the current validation state and the validation method, but it does not disclose details such as auth needs, rate limits, or how the returned token should be handled. Given the annotations cover the main side-effect concerns, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core behavior, then give the use case and cross-reference the relevant sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place with no padding, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 status tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to call it, and what to do next if action is needed. The parameter schema additionally covers how to fill each argument, so no important context 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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters clearly, including where their values come from (e.g., sanName from eurodns_ssl_get_certificate, certificateId and subscriptionId from eurodns_ssl_get_subscription). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Returns') with a precise resource: the validation status of one certificate name, including method, approver, token, and current state. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_certificate or get_subscription because it targets validation of a single SAN name. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Check it when an ordered certificate has not been issued.' It also names the exact alternatives for follow-up actions: eurodns_ssl_update_validation_approver for changing the method or approver, and eurodns_ssl_resend_approver_email for resending the email. This fully routes the agent to the correct tool and away from wrong siblings.

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