combell_ssl_certificate_requests_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the pending-filter scope as behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination defaults, or empty-result behavior. This matches the calibration pattern where scoping context earns a 3 when annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The parenthetical earns its place by precisely defining 'pending' as 'not issued yet', which carries real disambiguation value.

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 low-complexity, read-only list with fully documented parameters and annotation-covered safety, the definition is nearly complete. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the returned item shape, which an agent would need to chain results into combell_ssl_certificate_requests_get or verify calls.

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%: both skip (default 0) and take (max 500, 'the API may return fewer') are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description uses a specific verb plus resource: 'List the pending SSL certificate requests', and the parenthetical '(orders that are not issued yet)' clearly defines the scope. This distinguishes it from combell_ssl_certificates_list (issued certificates) and from the request-focused siblings (get/create/verify). An agent can tell what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 'pending... not issued yet' scope gives implied guidance on when to use this tool, but no alternative is named and no exclusion is stated. With five SSL-related siblings (certificates list/get, requests get/create/verify), the agent is left to infer which sibling to call for issued certificates or for a single request's details.

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