academy_certificates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that certificates are 'earned' and includes 'public verification URLs,' which implies read-only access to user-specific data. However, it doesn't address key behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the list is paginated/sorted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List your earned certificates with public verification URLs.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value (e.g., 'earned' specifies ownership, 'public verification URLs' adds useful detail). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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's complexity (simple list operation with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but misses behavioral details (e.g., auth, errors) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. For a read-only list tool, it provides the basic purpose but lacks completeness for optimal agent use without additional context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does provide context about what the tool returns ('earned certificates with public verification URLs'), which is helpful. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description compensates adequately by explaining the output.

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 tool's purpose: 'List your earned certificates with public verification URLs.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('earned certificates'), and includes additional context about verification URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'academy_stats' or 'academy_progress_complete' that might also provide certificate-related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (e.g., academy_stats, academy_progress_complete) that might overlap with certificate information, but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify contexts where this tool is preferred. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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