issue web certificate

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

Annotations already establish this as a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds the notion of 'renew' vs 'issue' but does not disclose prerequisites like domain verification, DNS checks, or potential side effects on existing certificates. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides marginal added value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence about the verified command adds a minor implementation detail that is not essential for selection but does not waste words. It is concise and structured logically, though the command reference is slightly tangential.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description omits all parameter semantics, prerequisites, and behavioral nuances beyond the basic action. Even though the output schema exists, the description still fails to provide enough guidance for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially regarding the optional parameters and renewal behavior.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (user, domain, aliases, includeMail). The phrase 'for a web domain' weakly implies the domain parameter, but it offers no explanation for aliases or includeMail, and no constraints on the user parameter. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action ('Issue or renew a Let's Encrypt certificate') and the target resource ('a web domain'). It distinguishes itself from siblings because no other tool in the list deals with certificates. The mention of the underlying command adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 clear context: use this to obtain or refresh a Let's Encrypt cert for a domain. It does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or name alternatives, but since no sibling tool serves the same purpose, the usage intent is unambiguous. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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