Resend the SSL certificate validation email

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the concrete behavior 'every call sends another', which reinforces the non-idempotent nature and warns against misuse. It also states 'returns nothing on success', which is useful beyond annotations. It doesn't cover potential failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple action this is adequate; the description adds context beyond what annotations provide.

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 pack the core action, usage conditions, exclusions, and alternative tools with zero fluff. The essential action is front-loaded, and each clause earns its place. No redundancy.

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 resend action, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to handle the wrong-address case. It also references the sibling for state checking. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with rich descriptions (e.g., 'exactly as it appears on the certificate' and provenance from sibling tools). The description merely restates the parameter names without adding new semantic details. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sends the validation email for the name sanName of certificate certificateId, in SSL subscription subscriptionId, to its approver again'. It clearly identifies the action and parameters. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like eurodns_ssl_get_validation and eurodns_ssl_update_validation_approver by naming them, so an agent can disambiguate.

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 explicit when-to-use: 'Use it when the approver did not receive the first mail'. It also gives when-not-to-use: 'do not use it to check the state' and points to the correct alternative for state checking (eurodns_ssl_get_validation) and for fixing a wrong address (eurodns_ssl_update_validation_approver). This is textbook usage guidance.

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