agent_certificates

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description explains that certificates are local to the Storno Agent and distinguishes token certificates requiring a PIN from cloud certificates approved by a vendor app and software certificates requiring no PIN. This adds meaningful operational context, though it does not cover behavior when the local agent is unavailable or how an empty result should be interpreted.

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 compact and front-loads the resource and returned fields before explaining certificate-kind semantics and downstream id use. Despite dense parenthetical detail, every clause carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 and no parameters, the description supplies the relevant return fields and their meanings, plus the downstream use of id. It is nearly complete, but it does not state the response container shape or error/empty-state 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies. The description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance.

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 identifies a specific resource, qualified certificates usable by the local Storno Agent, and enumerates certificate kinds and returned fields. It also distinguishes the tool from signing/submission siblings by pointing to agent_sign_pdf and the submission tools as consumers of the returned id.

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 final sentence clearly establishes when the returned id is needed: before calling agent_sign_pdf or the submission tools. It gives strong context but does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guideline.

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