Refresh certificate status

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds information annotations cannot express: the operation is durably scheduled (asynchronous/deferred, hence the polling instruction), it does not touch the order or management layer, and it requires the certificates:manage scope. The 'read-only ... reconciliation' phrasing sits alongside readOnlyHint=false, but it is explained by 'Durably schedule' (scheduling is the write; the reconciliation itself is not), so this reads as clarification rather than contradiction.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the action and scope come first, then the trigger, then the required follow-up, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries actionable information for an agent.

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 compensates by telling the agent this is asynchronous and must be followed by polling get_certificate and list_certificate_actions, and it states the required permission. It does not say what the call itself returns (e.g., whether an action or job identifier comes back), which is the one remaining gap for a scheduling tool.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that the UUID comes from list_certificates. The description only adds the 'one owned order' ownership framing, which is already implied by the schema text, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Durably schedule a ... certificate-authority status reconciliation') scoped to 'one owned order'. This cleanly separates it from siblings such as recheck_certificate_validation, reissue_certificate, and get_certificate, which an agent could otherwise confuse with a status refresh.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use this for stale or ambiguous state') and a follow-up workflow ('Poll get_certificate and list_certificate_actions afterward'), plus a scope boundary ('never repeats an order or management mutation'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use when the state is not stale or ambiguous, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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