get criterion certificate

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that the call is free and does no judging, returns 404 for out-of-workspace criteria, uses Cache-Control: no-store, returns unsigned certificates when no signing secret is configured, and honestly reports unmeasured calibration. It also explains the camelCase/verbatim emission so the signature can be re-derived, which is critical behavioral context. 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?

The description is long but tightly structured: a one-sentence summary, endpoint and auth scope, response shape, then operational notes. Every block earns its place, especially because there is no output schema, so the detailed inline JSON shape is necessary rather than filler.

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?

This is a complete description for a one-parameter GET: endpoint, auth scope, full response shape, signature verification flow, error condition, caching behavior, and degenerate uncalibrated case are all specified. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to do with the result.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `id` parameter, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds the 404-out-of-workspace behavior and repeats the path/workspace membership, but it does not materially change or extend parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb/resource: 'Returns the signed judge certificate for a criterion' and names the exact contents and use cases (audits, evidence bundles, proving a judge's calibration to a third party). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_criterion or is_my_judge_trustworthy by focusing on a signed, verifiable certificate rather than the criterion definition.

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 gives explicit use contexts: 'for audits, evidence bundles, or proving a judge's calibration to a third party.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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