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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output fields (fingerprint, SANs, issuer, validity window) and demonstrating expected query structure with an example.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence followed by a representative example. Every element earns its place: the action, the data source, the search modes, the return fields, and the example call.

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 read-only certificate search with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the resource, query syntax, return fields, and usage example. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers parameter constraints, so nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `q` can be a domain, SAN, or fingerprint and provides an invocation example, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the already-complete schema descriptions.

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 ('search'), a resource ('Censys certificate-transparency dataset'), and the exact matching modes (domain, SAN, SHA-256 fingerprint). It names the returned fields, and its focus on certificates clearly distinguishes it from the host-oriented sibling tools like censys_host_search.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: whenever certificate data is needed, and includes query syntax examples with `names:` and `parsed.issuer.organization`. It does not explicitly list exclusions versus censys_host/censys_host_search, so no score higher than 4.

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