search_haproxy_frontend_certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is known. The description adds valuable context about the distinction between additional SNI certificates and the default certificate, which is not available from annotations alone. It does not mention pagination or return format, but these are adequately covered by the output schema and parameter descriptions.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the note adds a crucial clarification without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simple read-only nature, the description adequately explains what it returns, what it excludes, and how it relates to sibling tools. With an existing output schema and full annotation coverage, no further information is needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including the source of parent_id. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('additional SNI SSL certificates bound to an HAProxy frontend'). It distinguishes itself from the default certificate and points to related tools, so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 clarifies that this tool lists only additional SNI certificates, not the default certificate, and directs users to 'update_haproxy_frontend' and 'search_haproxy_frontends' for the default certificate. This provides clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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