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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that it performs a TLS handshake from the server edge, has a 5-second timeout, extracts the leaf certificate, and describes the exact success/error return structure. No behavioral aspects are hidden.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a single-parameter tool with no output schema, but the description fully compensates by explaining the return format in detail, including success and error cases. It also covers the timeout, handshake behavior, and use cases, making the tool's behavior and outputs fully actionable for an agent.

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% with a detailed description of the 'domain' parameter (public FQDN, resolvable, rejects IPs/ports/paths). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 fetches and inspects the TLS certificate on port 443, with specific details on what it returns (chain details, validity period). It also distinguishes itself from a cipher-suite scanner, making its scope unambiguous among the sibling dossier tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (verify certificate expiry, issuer, SANs, detect mismatched/self-signed certs) and provides a clear exclusion ('not a full cipher-suite scanner'). This gives the agent strong guidance on appropriate vs inappropriate uses, even if no alternative tool is named.

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