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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces the open-world nature ('from the internet') while adding genuinely new behavioral facts: the ~60 s runtime and the shape of the result (verdict, findings with cause and fix, shareable report link). It does not cover rate limits or failure modes, so it falls short of 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?

Four tight sentences: purpose first, then when to use, then what it returns, then the latency caveat. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant information is 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, but the description compensates by describing the return values (verdict, findings with cause and fix, report link) plus the runtime. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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%, so host and port are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions protocol/cipher coverage but adds no parameter-level detail such as port syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states; baseline 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 (Scan) and resource (a public host's TLS) with the exact facets covered: certificate chain, expiry, hostname match, protocols, ciphers, HSTS. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_dns, check_http, and check_port without needing to name them.

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 explicit triggering conditions: certificate errors, before/after renewing or rotating a cert, and confirming old TLS versions are disabled. Clear context, though it stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or stating when a different check (e.g. check_port) would be the better choice.

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