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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that a live handshake is performed per protocol version against the target host, and that consumption costs 2 credits. That cost and network-touch disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting failure behavior (unreachable host, handshake timeouts) or whether results are cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence starts with the purpose and the mechanism, then lists the outputs, then appends the credit cost. Every clause carries information. It is dense but not padded; minor redundancy from repeating the tool name twice at the start.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration in the description is partly redundant but reinforcing rather than harmful. Between annotations, a fully described 2-parameter schema, and the output schema, an agent has enough to select and call the tool; only the sibling-routing and failure-mode context are 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% and both parameters (domain, port with default 443 and example) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as non-standard port implications or accepted domain formats (IP, URL with scheme), so it does not exceed 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it tests which TLS protocol versions a server accepts by running live handshakes for 1.0-1.3, and enumerates the reported outputs. The scope is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from a very close sibling such as SSLCertificateChecker, which also probes a domain's TLS/SSL setup, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for auditing a server's TLS version acceptance, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use SSLCertificateChecker when Y', nor any prerequisite or exclusion (e.g., non-TLS ports, hosts behind a proxy). Guidance is adequate but leaves the sibling choice to guesswork.

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