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 well: it discloses that data comes straight from the leaf certificate, that no live lookup occurs, that only a benign TLS handshake with no HTTP request is made, and that it is guarded against internal targets. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose first, then the crucial negative scope clarification, then behavioral/safety notes. No sentence is filler and the most important distinctions are front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still names the returned information (OCSP responders, CRL distribution points, must-staple flag) plus the safety posture. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (host, port) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report the revocation posture of the certificate a host serves') and enumerates exactly what is reported: OCSP responders, CRL distribution points, and must-staple status. It explicitly names its sibling tls_certificate as a complement, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear when/when-not: it 'does NOT perform a live OCSP/CRL lookup' and answers 'can revocation be checked, and how?' rather than 'is it revoked now?'. This is an explicit boundary that routes the agent correctly, and it points to tls_certificate as the complementary tool.

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