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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the bounded DNS/TLS mechanism, port 443, no HTTP request, returned fields, and the x402 v2 payment cost on Base or Solana. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or idempotency, but the cost/payment and safety profile are unusually well documented.

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 purpose, then scope/exclusions, then input format, then return values, then cost. Every sentence adds distinct information with no wasted wording.

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 audit tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, boundaries, input type, return values, and payment requirements. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and invoke it correctly 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 the single 'domain' parameter. The description adds only a restatement of the hostname-not-URL constraint already present in the schema; no additional syntax or formatting guidance beyond that.

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 — auditing public DNS records and TLS certificates of one hostname — plus the mechanism (bounded DNS resolution and TLS handshake to port 443). Explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as web_fetch and web_extract.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('basic hostname/certificate check') and clear exclusions naming the correct alternatives (web_fetch, web_extract) and out-of-scope activities (vulnerability scanning, port scanning, private IP networks). Also clarifies that the input must be a hostname, not a URL.

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