Get certificate validation

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: the required certificates:read scope, the pending-challenge visibility, and the wildcard DNS-validation rule. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: read scope, wildcard behavior, non-mutation, and required permission.

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, one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral constraints and authorization requirement. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to the mutation/recheck siblings, but it is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as a certificate order UUID returned by list_certificates. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 gives a specific read verb and clearly scopes the resource to per-name domain-control validation state and the owner-visible pending challenge. It implicitly distinguishes itself from certificate retrieval and mutation tools, though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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 states the relevant usage context (while a challenge is pending) and explicitly says it never submits or changes a validation method, which is a clear when-not signal. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use for submitting, changing, or rechecking validation.

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