iis_get_certificates

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already clear. The description adds that it returns both historical records and current statuses, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't specify freshness of data, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits, so it only partially extends the annotation-provided transparency.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, directly stating what is retrieved. It's appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative about the return format without becoming verbose.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics: what is retrieved (history and current statuses) and the domain (BSUIR education certificates). However, it doesn't explain the return structure, sorting, or how to interpret statuses, which an agent might need to use the result correctly. It is 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameters to describe, so no additional meaning is required, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned data rather than 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 states a specific verb (Получить, 'retrieve') and resource (историю и текущие статусы заказанных справок об обучении в БГУИР, 'history and current statuses of ordered education certificates at BSUIR'). It is distinguishable from siblings like iis_get_markbook or iis_get_omissions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a certificate must have been ordered first) or what scenarios warrant fetching certificate history/statuses. The description is purely declarative, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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