get_certificates

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses sorting order, 20-per-page pagination, AND-combining of filters, server-side auth injection, 30-per-10s throttle with retry on 429/5xx, and detailed error status semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and front-loaded read-only/GET marker. A minor redundancy in 'Get certificates. Returns a list with certificates' keeps it from being perfectly concise, but every section 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?

Comprehensive for a list endpoint with no output schema: it explains pagination, filtering, auth, rate limits, error mapping, and relationship to sibling tools, so an agent can invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the AND operator behavior across query params, the 'at least one query parameter required' rule, and directs the agent to page through results using `page`, which enhances but does not duplicate the schema.

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 and resource ('Get certificates. Returns a list with certificates'), identifies the HTTP endpoint, and distinguishes itself from the certificate write tools by naming them. Clear and 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?

Explicitly provides a 'Use when' section ('safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting'), a when-not ('Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool'), and names alternate certificate tools. Also states the requirement that at least one query parameter be provided.

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