tcg_bgs_get_cert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the tool is stubbed, returns a 'not supported' error, and that implementation is deferred. This clearly communicates the tool's current non-functional status.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key fact 'stubbed'. Every sentence is relevant, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding parameter info, but given the stub nature, it is appropriately sized.

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 is a stub and has an output schema (likely for error responses), the description is complete. It explains the current state, the expected behavior (error), and the reason. No further details are needed for an agent to understand how to handle this tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter-level details about 'cert_number' (e.g., format, purpose). The schema only shows length constraints. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient for proper parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool as a BGS cert lookup that is stubbed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tcg_psa_get_cert and tcg_cgc_get_cert. It explicitly states that Beckett has no official public API and that it returns a 'not supported' error, making the purpose precise.

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 should not be used for actual lookups because it returns an error, but it does not explicitly recommend alternative tools or provide when-to-use guidance. The annotation title includes 'STUB', which helps, but the description lacks direct usage advice.

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