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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a real TLS handshake occurs, that no HTTP request is made, and that internal targets are blocked. Permission/rate-limit behavior and timeout/error handling are unstated, keeping it below a 5.

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 the enumeration of returned fields, the sibling comparison, and the safety note all earn their place. The middle clause is a dense list, but nothing is redundant or wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by itemizing precisely what the inspection returns, including the chain trust verdict and negotiated protocol/cipher. Combined with the handshake behavior and target guard, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (host, port with default 443) are documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond examples already present. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: inspect the leaf certificate served during a live TLS handshake, then enumerates exactly what is returned (subject, issuer, SANs, validity, algorithms, chain, trust verdict). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cert_transparency by contrasting 'presented right now' with 'historical CT logs'.

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?

Names the alternative (cert_transparency) and the condition that selects between them (live handshake vs historical CT logs), and notes the internal-target guard. It does not state when not to use this tool or mention related siblings like tls_posture or cert_revocation, so it falls short of a full 5.

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