ssl_inspector__get_cert_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields but says nothing about network access requirements, timeouts, rate limits, what happens if the certificate is invalid or the host is unreachable, or whether the call is read-only.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though wrapping it as the entire body leaves no room for the usage/behavioral context a tool with siblings would benefit from.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the parameters implicitly and lists the return payload, but omits any sibling disambiguation or failure-mode context that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% – both 'host' and 'port' (default 443) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('certificate information for a domain') and even enumerates the returned content (fingerprint, SANs, issuer chain). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like inspect_ssl or check_cert_expiry, so an agent cannot tell which SSL tool to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Given three closely related sibling tools (inspect_ssl, inspect_ssl_bulk, check_cert_expiry), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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