Recheck free TLS certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: approval is mandatory (matching the acknowledge parameter), the certificate must be owned and pending, the operation is asynchronous so results come from a separate poll, and certificates:manage is required.

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 sentences, no filler, and the operation's premise (recheck validation) is front-loaded before the procedural details and permission note.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains that the outcome must be retrieved by polling get_free_certificate, which resolves the natural ambiguity of an async recheck. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering permissions and approval, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the const:true acknowledge flag. The description only reinforces that approval is required and that the request must be an owned pending certificate, adding little mechanism beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus resource and scope (validation for an owned pending free TLS certificate), which separates it from get_free_certificate (read) and recheck_certificate_validation (paid certificates). The 'owned pending' qualifier tells an agent exactly which resource state this applies to.

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?

Gives clear sequencing guidance ('after reading its current state') and names the follow-up tool for the outcome ('poll get_free_certificate for the final result'), plus the required permission (certificates:manage). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. what to do if the certificate is not pending).

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