List my payout certificates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the content of each certificate and explicitly stating exclusions (settlement claims, payment details), which gives the agent a clear behavioral picture beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and contents, then a clear exclusion and pointer. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. It is efficiently structured for an agent to quickly understand scope.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and what it excludes. It covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs to decide when to call it. It lacks explicit pagination details, but those are in the schema. Overall, it is complete for a filtered list tool.

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%, with each parameter (limit, offset, status, overdueOnly) having its own description. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The mention of 'overdue' in the content indirectly relates to overdueOnly but does not add new semantics.

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 tool lists the signed-in researcher's payout certificates and enumerates the exact fields returned (gross, withheld, net, grader, appeal window, due date, overdue status). It distinguishes itself by explicitly noting what is NOT returned (settlement claims and payment details) and directs to the website, making its purpose 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?

The description provides a clear when-not-to-use by excluding settlement claims and payment details and pointing to the BugSecure website. It does not explicitly mention sibling list_org_certificates as an alternative for organization-wide certificates, but the 'signed-in researcher's' phrasing implies personal scope. This is solid guidance, though not exhaustive.

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