Resend paid certificate validation

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds context beyond them: the required 'certificates:manage' scope, the approval gate, and the fact that the action is a resend-then-poll flow. It does not say what the resend physically does (e.g., emails the contact) or how long polling should continue.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then follow-up, then permission requirement in four tight sentences with no filler. Slightly fragmented into imperative fragments, but every sentence carries an instruction the agent needs.

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 non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing elements: prerequisites, approval requirement, polling follow-up, and the auth scope. What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is largely present, though the side effect of the resend and retry/idempotency behavior are left to the schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented (idempotency key semantics, certificate_order_id origin, acknowledge flag). The description's 'obtain explicit approval' loosely maps to acknowledge_certificate_action but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Resend validation instructions for an owned paid TLS certificate order'), and the word 'paid' implicitly separates it from the free-certificate tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like recheck_certificate_validation or change_certificate_validation, so it falls short of a 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?

Gives an ordered pre-flight workflow ('Read current validation and list_certificate_actions first, then obtain explicit approval') and a follow-up ('Poll get_certificate_validation for the final result'). It names sibling tools to consult, but never states when NOT to use this tool versus recheck/reissue/change validation, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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