Recheck paid certificate validation

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the certificates:manage permission requirement, the mandatory explicit-approval step, and the async nature resolved via get_certificate_validation polling.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the operational workflow and permission requirement. Each sentence carries distinct value (scope, prerequisites, polling, auth), though the ordering is slightly list-like rather than flowing.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden but resolves it by directing the agent to poll get_certificate_validation for the final result. Permission, approval, and prerequisite steps are covered, making it largely complete for this mutating, async operation.

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 coverage is 75% and three of four parameters carry their own descriptions (idempotencyKey, certificate_order_id, acknowledge_certificate_action). The description only gestures at 'specified DNS names' for the undocumented domains param, so it neither needs to nor does compensate much beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb (Recheck validation) and resource (DNS names in an owned paid TLS certificate order), scoping to 'paid' which separates it from recheck_free_certificate. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like resend_certificate_validation or change_certificate_validation, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the correct sequence: read current validation and list_certificate_actions first, obtain explicit approval, then poll get_certificate_validation for the result. It names the sibling tools to consult and the follow-up tool, leaving little to inference about when and how to invoke this.

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