combell_ssl_certificates_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying the certificate types (paid vs. Let's Encrypt) and the fields returned, which annotations don't cover. This is a good supplement without 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the Let's Encrypt clarification is efficient. No wasted words; 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 list tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is listed, the fields returned, and the boundary with Let's Encrypt. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Both parameters (skip, take) are fully described in the schema with minimums and defaults, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 tool lists paid SSL certificates with specific fields (common name, expiry, type, validation level). It distinguishes itself from Let's Encrypt certificates, which are managed per hosting, so an agent can quickly understand its scope and differentiate from siblings like combell_ssl_certificates_get or combell_ssl_certificate_requests_list.

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 explicitly notes that Let's Encrypt certificates are managed per hosting, implicitly telling the agent not to use this tool for those. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools, leaving some inference required. Still, the guidance is clear enough for most cases.

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