cdn_get_cdn_ssl_certificate

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

No annotations exist, so description carries burden. It discloses that identifier resolution is smart (origin domain, CDN domain, or UUID), which is useful behavior. However, it doesn't disclose return format fully enough beyond saying 'including expiry and status' – no mention of potential errors or authentication needs.

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?

Concise and well-structured: short opening sentence, then a 'Smart identifier resolution' label, Args, and Returns sections. No fluff, each sentence contributes. Slightly could be more compact but overall efficient.

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 it has an output schema (though not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail beyond key info. It's a single-parameter tool, so relatively simple. Missing guidance on pagination, error handling, or permission requirements, but those are not critical for a simple get operation. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The description explains the parameter accepts multiple forms (origin domain, CDN domain, or ID), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail exact format expectations or give examples. Baseline 3 because it partially compensates.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves SSL certificate information for a CDN zone, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on SSL certificate retrieval, but does not explicitly contrast with cdn_get_cdn_zone which might be similar.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use: when needing SSL certificate info. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context (CDN domain) is clear. No mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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