Get paid TLS certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations do not: the lifecycle semantics (paid/queued/validating orders are not issued) and the auth scope required. It does not describe the response payload shape, though no output schema exists to do that for it.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the readiness caveat and the permission requirement. Every sentence carries operational weight.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, state precondition, and auth. The main gap is that with no output schema, the return shape is only partially inferable from the mentioned state/download_available fields.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage and the schema already explains it is the order UUID returned by list_certificates. The prose adds only 'customer-owned paid' as scope framing, no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema — baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read one customer-owned paid TLS certificate order.' The 'paid' qualifier implicitly separates it from the free-certificate siblings (get_free_certificate, list_free_certificates), which is meaningful differentiation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool outright, so it lands at clear-but-not-routing.

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?

Supplies a concrete decision condition — 'require state=active and download_available=true before treating the public certificate as ready' — plus the required scope 'certificates:read', so an agent knows both the precondition and the permission needed. It does not explicitly compare against list_certificates or get_free_certificate, so there is no exclusion/alternative routing.

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