yeastar_list_certificates

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is metadata-only and does not return private key material, which is important safety context. It could add pagination or error behavior, but those are minor gaps for a simple list operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides an important limitation without unnecessary elaboration.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description names the returned metadata fields and the key limitation around private keys. It could more explicitly describe the response shape, but the field list and purpose are sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the page and page_size parameters are fully documented by the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List TLS certificate metadata') and enumerates the returned fields (name, domain, expiry date). This clearly distinguishes it from the many list/get sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use case: monitoring certificate expiry. It also warns that private key material is not returned and that certificate/get is never implemented, which prevents an agent from attempting an unavailable operation. Since no sibling tool is certificate-focused, explicit alternative routing is unnecessary.

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