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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'passive and non-intrusive: one TLS handshake and two page requests, like a browser visit' discloses load/side-effect profile, and it describes the response shape (issues most severe first plus a link to the full audit). Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so this is a meaningful supplement, though it says nothing about rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the header list is packed efficiently into a parenthetical enumeration rather than separate sentences. The third sentence about request count is slightly tangential but short and it earns its place as the safety profile.

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, but the description compensates by stating what is returned (issues ordered most severe first, plus a link to the full audit) and the scope of the check. Inputs are fully documented by the schema. Slightly more detail on the returned issue structure would make it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'domain' and the 'language' enum with its default and usage note. The description adds nothing further about parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Checks the HTTPS setup of a public website') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected (TLS certificate, negotiated version, redirect, security headers). This is unambiguous and easily separable from the unrelated siblings get_pricing and search_cyber_knowledge.

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 by 'public website' and 'checks... in a few seconds', and it points at a full graded SSL/TLS audit as a follow-up, but it never states when to use this versus doing a deeper audit or when this tool is inappropriate. No explicit exclusions or alternative-tool routing.

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