combell_ssl_certificate_requests_get

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important lifecycle behavior: ongoing requests include domain validations and a short-lived portal URL; completed requests return HTTP 303 with the certificate location; missing requests return HTTP 410. This is substantial behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: the first states the core action, and the next two explain the distinct response modes by lifecycle state. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 the burden of explaining what the response looks like, and it does so across all relevant states: in-progress, completed, and gone. The single required parameter is simple and already documented, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('The certificate request id') and 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed beyond the schema.

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: 'Get an SSL certificate request.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like combell_ssl_certificates_get (issued certificates) and combell_ssl_certificate_requests_list (listing requests) by focusing on the lifecycle states of a single request.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve a single SSL certificate request and see its current state, including outstanding validations or completion status. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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