network_ssl_certificate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists what the tool checks but does not specify the input format (e.g., how to provide the website URL), output format, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication. The parameter 'worker_id' is described but its relation to the SSL check is unclear.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The instruction to use describe_tool for full guidance is economical but could be seen as a pointer rather than standalone completeness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and one optional parameter, the description should fully explain the tool's operation. It fails to mention how to specify the website (e.g., domain or URL), which is essential for the SSL check. The return value or status is not described.

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?

The single parameter 'worker_id' is documented in the schema with 100% coverage. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Critically, the website input for SSL checking is not parameterized, leaving a major gap in understanding how to use the tool.

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?

The description clearly states the tool checks SSL certificate details, expiry, chain validation, security analysis, and transparency. The verb 'Check' and resource 'SSL certificate' are specific. Among siblings, there is no other SSL-specific tool, so it distinguishes well.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only instruction is to use describe_tool for full guidance, which is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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