Certificate issuance history

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real operational detail beyond them: ID deduplication, truncation reporting, a shared six-hour cache, and the staleness caveat that CT history is not live state. This is exactly the kind of context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the returned data before the caveats, and each sentence carries distinct information (fields, dedup/truncation, isolation, cache, staleness). Slightly dense and list-like but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it also covers caching, truncation, deduplication, and the key limitation about current serving. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, and the schema already documents the domain format and the 1-100 limit with newest-first ordering. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (Read) and resource (crt.sh certificate entries) and enumerates the returned fields (issuer, validity dates, logged time, related names, certificate link). The closing line 'CT history does not show what is served now' implicitly separates it from the current-state tls_certificate sibling.

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?

Gives clear context: it reads historical CT log data with 'No direct connection to the target' and does not reflect current serving, which steers the agent toward live-check tools for present state. It stops short of explicitly naming tls_certificate as the alternative for current certs, so no full when/when-not routing.

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