Get the certificate PDF

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool saves to a local file, specifies a default save path, and clarifies authentication requirements (no credential needed for hash-only mode). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., server state changes), error conditions (e.g., if attestation is stale or hash not found), or file overwrite behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 concise, consisting of exactly three sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the subsequent sentences clearly delineate the two usage modes. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the two primary use cases and provides necessary parameter context. It mentions the default file path and credential requirements. However, it does not specify the return value (is there a confirmation or path returned?) or error handling, which would be valuable for completeness.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% for the two described parameters (hash and save_to) and one nested object (attestation), the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'attestation' must be the exact object returned by attest_file, and that the hash-only mode requires no credential. The description also provides a default value for save_to. This enhances the agent's ability to correctly use 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 that the tool retrieves a signed certificate PDF for an attested work and saves it to a local file. It distinguishes between two distinct use cases: minting a fresh PDF using an attestation object, and recovering an archived certificate using only a hash. This specificity, combined with differentiation from sibling tools like attest_file and verify_certificate, makes the purpose highly clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: 'Pass attestation right after attesting' for a new PDF, and 'Pass only hash to recover an already-archived certificate' with the note that no credential is needed. This makes it easy for an agent to decide which parameters to provide based on the scenario.

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