get_cert_provider

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the returned provider configuration deliberately excludes the external account binding secret. This is a critical behavioral detail that prevents agents from expecting a secret field and adds genuine value.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds an important caveat without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides essential output context by noting what is included and, more importantly, what is excluded. For a one-parameter read-only getter, this is sufficient, though an example or field enumeration could push it to 5.

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 already fully documents the single provider_id parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond restating 'by ID', 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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('certificate provider'), and a precise scope ('by ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling list_cert_providers, so an agent can immediately understand what it 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 phrase 'by ID' clearly signals that this tool is for fetching a single known provider rather than listing providers. It does not explicitly name the alternative list_cert_providers, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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