get_cert_auto_certificate

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation and does not contradict it. It also does not add meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation, such as error behavior or response format, although nothing obviously harmful is hidden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, the resource, and the identifying parameter in the most efficient form possible.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one well-documented required parameter and a read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to list_cert_auto_certificates as the way to discover IDs, or by noting what 'details' includes, but the core calling information is present.

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 the schema already documents auto_certificate_id as 'the ID of the auto-certificate'. The description only repeats 'by ID' and adds no extra semantics about value format, source, or constraints.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('auto-certificate'), and 'specific ... by ID' clearly distinguishes this from sibling list_cert_auto_certificates, which would return multiple records. The resource term also separates it from get_cert_certificate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cert_auto_certificates or get_cert_certificate. It provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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