combell_ssl_certificate_requests_verify

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond those: verification is asynchronous ('takes some time'), single invocation suffices, and the tool reports 'completed' (303) or 'gone' (410) like the get tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and precondition are front-loaded, and the behavioral/status details follow efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers when to call it, how many times, the asynchronous nature, and expected response codes. There is no critical missing information for an agent 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?

The only parameter, id, is already fully documented in the input schema as 'The certificate request id'. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the burden and the 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?

The description clearly states the action: ask Combell to verify domain validations of a certificate request. It also specifies the precondition ('once every non auto-validated value is in place'), making the tool's purpose distinct from the sibling get/list/create certificate request tools.

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 timing guidance ('once every non auto-validated value is in place') and says 'calling it once is enough', which prevents repeated invocations. It references the 'get tool' for status reporting and implies using that for checking results, though it does not explicitly say 'use get instead'.

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