List Site Certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the authorization requirement (site:meta scope), which is valuable. However, it does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or data format beyond what the schema provides, so the added transparency is limited.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key details. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the 8 parameters, full schema descriptions, and annotations, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, the lack of output schema and brief description means the agent must infer response format from the schema fields alone. Still, for a listing tool, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional meaning for parameters beyond the schema. The mention of 'type, status and expiry' relates to the output, not input parameters, so no extra value.

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 explicitly states the tool lists a site's SSL certificates with type, status, and expiry, and identifies it as the read to use for certificate-expiry checks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sites or list_domains.

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 guidance: it is 'the read to use for certificate-expiry checks' and mentions the required scope ('site:meta'). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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