infomaniak_get_certificate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, reducing the burden. The description adds value by detailing the specific return fields (provisioning state, type, validity flags, timestamps, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond 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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists features. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the list of fields makes it slightly long.

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?

With an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it does so helpfully. However, it omits how to obtain the required IDs (e.g., from list hostings/sites) and does not address error cases like missing certificates. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that hosting_id and site_id identify a site on a web hosting, but does not define them clearly or indicate how to obtain them. This is insufficient for a tool with only two parameters.

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 clearly states it returns the full SSL certificate detail for one site on a web hosting, and lists many specific fields. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like infomaniak_request_certificate and infomaniak_delete_certificate.

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 implies usage for retrieving certificate details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like infomaniak_list_sites or infomaniak_get_domain. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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