Certificate Matches Key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the check but fails to disclose return format, success/failure indicators, error handling, side effects, or any required permissions. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence that is direct and devoid of unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the purpose.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., boolean) or behavior on mismatch. It does not, leaving a significant gap in completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, except hinting that either publicKey or privateKey can be supplied, but does not clarify exclusivity or mutual exclusion.

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 verb 'check', the resource 'X.509 certificate public key', and the comparison targets 'public key bytes or a PKCS#8 private key'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools focused on ASN.1 parsing or key generation.

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 implies the tool is used for verifying key match, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'verify_key_pair' or 'parse_certificate'. No exclusions or usage contexts are provided.

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