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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth requirements) beyond listing output fields, which is already covered by the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and followed by output details and use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input, output fields, and usage context adequately. Minor omissions (e.g., port number or IP support) do not significantly hinder understanding.

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 schema provides a description for the 'domain' parameter with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool validates SSL/TLS certificates for any domain and lists specific returned fields (issuer, validity dates, etc.), making the purpose distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'web.ssl.check', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 mentions use cases like security audits and monitoring cert expiration, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to avoid it or mention alternatives, such as the sibling 'web.ssl.check'.

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