List stored certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what the results contain (the deploy hash), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or size limits.

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 compact sentence with the resource and the key payload detail front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It reads as a fragment without an explicit verb, which costs it the top score.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what is returned and why it matters (the deploy hash). Only pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor omission.

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% and both parameters (p, limit) are fully documented in the schema with defaults, bounds, and semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

Identifies the resource (SSL certificates uploaded to the panel) and adds a distinctive detail — that each entry carries the deploy hash. That distinguishes it from ssl_upload/ssl_deploy/ssl_disable, though the verb is only implied by the name rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. The phrase 'the hash needed to deploy one to a site' implicitly routes the agent here before calling ssl_deploy, but that workflow dependency must be inferred rather than being spelled out.

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