get_certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result — notably that the PEM chain is public (implying no private key is returned) and that extra status fields only exist for managed certificates. It does not mention permission requirements or behavior on a missing/invalid ID, which are the remaining 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?

One dense sentence with the resource stated first and the returned fields listed after, so the reader is oriented immediately. The trailing 'status.issuance / status.renewal / status.error' slash notation is slightly compressed but still parseable. No wasted framing or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does so by naming the key fields the caller will receive, including the conditional managed-cert status fields. For a single-parameter read tool with readOnly/openWorld annotations, that is close to sufficient; only error/empty-result behavior is left unstated.

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% with a single required 'id' parameter already described as 'Certificate ID'. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Get a TLS certificate') and enumerates what the returned certificate object contains: PEM chain, domain_names, validity window, fingerprint, used_by, and managed-cert status fields. It is immediately distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_certificate or delete_certificate. It does not explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over, which keeps it just below the top mark.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance: nothing says to call this after create_certificate to poll provisioning, or to prefer it over get_action for issuance progress. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get'. The description spends all its words on the payload rather than on routing the agent.

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