SSL Certificate Check

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it opens its own openssl handshakes to one host, covers a single endpoint rather than every load-balanced node, makes no chain-of-trust or revocation checks, and has measured latency plus a 12-second cutoff. These details go well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 long but every clause earns its place: core behavior and outputs are front-loaded, followed by use cases, exclusions, and operational constraints. There is no filler, tautology, or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter, read-only network probe with an output schema, the description covers invocation, expected outputs, limitations, and performance expectations. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether or how to call the 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?

The single `url` parameter is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including the scheme pattern and port fallback. The tool description mostly restates this ('explicit port or 443 by default'), adding only minor context like 'public host' and 'openssl,' so it adds little semantic value 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?

The description names a specific operation—'Opens its own TLS handshakes'—against a specific resource, one public host, and enumerates the outputs in detail: accepted TLS versions, protocol-support grade, and certificate fields. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does, even with no sibling tools to differentiate.

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?

It explicitly lists when to use the tool ('padlock, HTTPS, Not Secure, certificate-expiry and wrong-hostname questions, inspect certificate after renewal') and what it does not do ('does not fetch the page... not a browser trust decision'). Since there are no sibling tools, the negative guidance serves as the alternative-direction.

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