certificates_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no error behavior (missing ID, revoked certificate), no note about what include/fields expansion does to the payload. Repeating the path twice adds no behavioral information.

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?

Very short, but not efficient: the identical endpoint string is printed twice in parentheses, which is pure redundancy. It is front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing else to load.

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 read-by-ID tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state what is returned (a certificate resource with its fields). Instead it is a bare route echo, leaving the agent to infer scope from the parameter names alone.

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% — all four parameters (id, include, fields_passTypeIds, fields_certificates) are documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description contributes nothing beyond that, but nothing is lost either.

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 is just the raw endpoint string repeated twice: "GET /v1/certificates/{id}". It implies retrieval of a single certificate by ID, but there is no verb+resource phrasing and nothing distinguishes it from the ~40 other *_get_instance sibling tools beyond the URL slug.

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?

No guidance at all on when to use this tool versus siblings such as certificates_get_collection or certificates_pass_type_id_get_to_one_related, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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