List Expiring Certificates

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 does meaningful work: it declares read-only behavior, states that already-expired certificates are always included, specifies expiry ordering, and previews the return shape (days_left, used_by with proxy/redirection host references). It omits auth requirements, pagination/fan-out cost from resolving used_by hosts, and result-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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary scope (UTC expiry window, expired included, sorted) front-loaded and the secondary capability (host lookup via used_by) trailing. Every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema exists, so explaining return values was optional, yet the description still names days_left and used_by, which helps an agent interpret results. For a one-parameter read-only list tool with no annotations, the description is nearly self-sufficient; only permission and volume/pagination behavior are absent.

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% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented (range, default, expired-always-included). The description only reinforces the UTC-window framing, adding little beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List certificates expiring within the requested UTC time window') plus the key scope modifier that separates it from list_certificates: an expiry window, inclusion of already-expired certs, and expiry sorting. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling list_certificates without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('expiring within window'), so an agent can infer this is the expiry-oriented variant, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over list_certificates or what happens with the default window. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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