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

Annotations mark this as readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the handshake completes even for broken certificates, failure modes are surfaced as specific fields (cert.hostname_verification_error, cert.authorization_error) with 'critical' status, and TLS 1.0/1.1 are flagged insecure. This goes far beyond the annotations and clarifies edge-case behavior.

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 a dense paragraph where every clause adds value: it front-loads the core purpose, enumerates reported attributes, explains graceful handling of broken certs, and ends with a concrete fallback. There is no redundancy or filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (certificate attributes, TLS versions, HSTS, chain trust), the description covers the full behavioral scope, including failure modes and how they are reported. An output schema exists but the description adds meaning to fields like hostname_verification_error and authorization_error. The fallback hint completes the contextual picture.

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 domains, port, and timeout_ms with usage tips (e.g., 'Do not include https://'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'one or more domains' but that is already reflected in the schema's minItems. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inspect SSL/TLS certificate health') and states it performs a real TLS handshake on any internet-accessible domain. It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings by noting it works without a vendor registry, and later points to devops_check_dns as an alternative for connection failures.

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?

The description explicitly gives when to use the tool (any domain, no registry needed), what it reports, and when to fall back to a sibling ('If a domain fails to connect at all, check devops_check_dns first'). This is a clear, actionable usage guide that routes an agent to the correct sibling.

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