infomaniak_get_certificate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing exactly what 'full certificate detail' means, including possible provisioning states (installed, updating, error) and validity flags. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the kind of data returned, without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the key data points with parenthetical examples. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it is quite long and run-on in style. The structure is logical and each clause adds meaningful detail.

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 simplicity (two required integer parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates nearly all relevant return fields, including states, types, validity flags, timestamps, fingerprint, and errors. It does not cover error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward read operation.

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% and the description does not mention the parameters `hosting_id` and `site_id` at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to explain their roles or relationship (e.g., which site on which hosting). With no param information in either the schema or description, the agent receives no guidance on how to populate required fields.

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 action ('Return the full SSL certificate detail for one site on a web hosting') with a specific resource (SSL certificate) and scope (one site on a web hosting). It distinguishes itself from related siblings like request_certificate and delete_certificate by focusing on retrieval of existing certificate data. The enumeration of specific fields (provisioning state, type, issuer, validity flags, etc.) leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage is for retrieving certificate details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as request_certificate or delete_certificate. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are provided. The context is clear but the guidance is only implicit.

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