notification_certificate_get

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains idempotency (listing existing certificates first, reusing id), polling behavior, and response conditions (documentUrl when CERTIFIED). This aligns with annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false) 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?

The description is concise with four focused sentences: primary action, prerequisites, idempotent behavior, and polling instructions. No fluff, each sentence adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially addresses return values (documentUrl when CERTIFIED) but does not fully describe the output structure. Parameter semantics are incomplete, but behavioral and usage context are well covered.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'id' parameter (generate UUID v4, reuse on poll). The other four parameters (caseFileId, receiverId, notificationRequestId, language) receive no explanation, leaving significant gaps.

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 creates or retrieves a PDF certificate for a notification receiver, using specific verbs and the resource 'certificate'. It distinguishes from sibling notification tools like notification_request_send and notification_receiver_add.

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 lists prerequisites (notification_request_send, notification_receiver_add) and provides polling guidance when the certificate is in CERTIFYING status. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the context is clear.

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