provider_query_trusted_certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'currently trusted' qualifier and the REST endpoint, with nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or auth scope.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource in one short line. The appended raw endpoint path is mildly redundant with the annotation title but does convey the API route; there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate what a certificate entry looks like or at least that results are paged lists. With annotations and a fully documented schema, the definition is workable but leaves the agent guessing at return shape and pagination semantics.

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 100% and all five parameters (page, pageSize, filter, sortAsc, sortDesc) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond that, e.g. it doesn't mention that filter uses FIQL or that results are paged.

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 ('Get currently trusted certificates'), which is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like provider_trust_certificate or provider_delete_certificate. It does not explicitly differentiate from read siblings such as provider_query_certificate_library, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus provider_query_certificate_library, provider_get_certificate, or the trust/delete certificate tools. The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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