npm_get_certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get details' makes the non-destructive read nature apparent, but it says nothing about permission requirements, behavior for an unknown/invalid certificate_id, or error responses.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is a byproduct of omitting useful detail rather than careful editing.

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 single-resource read with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the core information is present. However, with no annotations, the description leaves the safety/auth profile and failure behavior entirely unstated, so it is only minimally complete.

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%: both certificate_id and expand are documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is by ID and adds no syntax, format, or semantics for the expand parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('SSL certificate') scoped by ID, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from npm_list_certificates, but the 'by ID'/'specific' framing makes the singular-vs-list distinction reasonably evident.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no sibling is named. The only guidance is implicit in 'specific ... by ID', which weakly suggests use over a list call when the identifier is known; nothing addresses when this is not the right tool.

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