notification_certificate_get

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

The description elaborates on idempotency (lists existing certificates and returns existing id), the two statuses (CERTIFIED and CERTIFYING) with corresponding actions, and the inclusion of documentUrl when available. This adds significant context beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 yet comprehensive. It starts with the core purpose, then prerequisites, then explains id generation and idempotency, and finally the polling behavior. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the response behavior (statuses and documentUrl). It covers all essential aspects: prerequisites, parameter usage for 'id', and the idempotent/polling nature. The tool's complexity is well-addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'id' parameter (generate UUID v4 first time and reuse). For other parameters (caseFileId, notificationRequestId, receiverId, language), the description provides minimal explanation beyond their names. The tool's overall purpose implies their role, but the description could be more explicit.

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 'Creates or retrieves a PDF certificate for a specific notification receiver,' specifying the action (create or retrieve), the output (PDF certificate), and the target (specific notification receiver). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like chat_certificate_get and dossier_certify by focusing on notification certificates.

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 states prerequisites (requires notification_request_send and notification_receiver_add), explains when to use the tool (creating or retrieving a certificate), and provides detailed polling guidance: generate UUID v4 for id first time, reuse on polling, and behavior for CERTIFIED vs CERTIFYING statuses. This covers when to use and how to use correctly.

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