get_certificate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only fetch operation and mentions that the return format matches verify_reasoning, which adds behavioral context. It does not disclose authentication or error conditions, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences in the first paragraph and a brief second paragraph. It front-loads the purpose and uses no superfluous words. 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 simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema (so return values are defined elsewhere), and the clear references to sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 and only a parameter name 'certificate_id'. The description adds value by providing an example format ('PRV-2026-A7X4') and clarifying that it is a certificate ID, which goes beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('previously issued certificate'), and the unique identifier ('by ID'). It provides an example format ('PRV-2026-A7X4') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like verify_reasoning by specifying its use case for re-checking, sharing, or inspecting failures from other pipelines.

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 suggests when to use this tool (re-check a verdict, share a link, inspect a failure) and implicitly contrasts it with verify_reasoning by saying it returns the same summary. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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