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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does state 'Passive OSINT, read-only' plus the data source (crt.sh), which are valuable behavioral cues. However, it omits rate limits, auth/quota behavior, and how empty results are handled — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the sibling differentiation and a short read-only tag. It is dense but every clause earns its place; the trailing 'Passive OSINT, read-only.' is a slightly abrupt fragment rather than integrated prose.

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 does note what comes back (the certificates and their distinct registrable domains), covering the return-value gap. A single fully-documented parameter rounds it out, though operational details like result limits remain unaddressed.

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% for the single required parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the organization name must match how it appears on certificates, but adds no format details beyond the schema's own example ('GitHub, Inc.').

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?

Specific verb+resource: finds certificates naming an organisation in Certificate Transparency and the distinct registrable domains on them. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling cert_transparency by characterizing itself as an org-to-domain-footprint link versus cert_transparency's per-domain view.

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 frames the tool as 'complementing cert_transparency's per-domain view', which signals when this org-based search is the right choice over the domain-based sibling. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or other alternatives (e.g. related_domains), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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