List certificate actions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: which fields are redacted (raw certificate-authority responses, request bodies, internal errors, provider IDs, credentials) and the read-permission requirement, both of which affect how an agent interprets the results.

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 tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded, followed by the redaction contract and the permission requirement. No filler and nothing that restates the name or annotations verbatim.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value burden; it characterizes the returned records ('durable customer-visible management actions') and what will not appear, which is the most important caveat. It stops short of describing record fields, ordering, or pagination, but is otherwise adequate for a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful qualifier by saying the certificate must be a 'paid' one, which distinguishes this parameter's domain from the free-certificate family present in the sibling list, going slightly beyond the schema's generic UUID wording.

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 ('List durable ... management actions for one paid certificate'), which tells the agent exactly what is enumerated. It is distinguishable from siblings such as get_certificate or download_certificate by the focus on the action/history log, but it never names or contrasts those 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?

The description scopes usage ('for one paid certificate') and states a required permission ('Requires certificates:read'), which is useful operational context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like list_certificates or list_automatic_ssl_actions, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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