get_certificate_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it explains the operational consequence of the data ('An expired ESXi cert drops host management'), the return shape (list envelope with a real total, rows containing host/not_after/days_until_expiry/expiring, soonest first), and an explicit coverage limitation. That is context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and the resource, then rationale, return shape, and routing guidance in tight order. Slightly dense with the mid-paragraph field enumeration, but no sentence is 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so (envelope, fields, ordering), plus scope caveat and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, target, and warn_days fully; baseline 3 applies. The description only indirectly gestures at warn_days via the 'expiring' flag and does not add format or default-syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Per-host ESXi management certificate expiry') and immediately scopes it against the obvious confusion: 'Host certificates only — the vCenter appliance's own certificate is not covered.' An agent can distinguish this from sibling status tools like get_license_status without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use this alongside get_license_status and get_ntp_status for a platform-hygiene sweep,' and states the boundary condition for acting — 'Renewing a certificate is a write this skill cannot do; use vmware-aiops or vCenter directly.' Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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