check_dane_https

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds context about TLSA records and part of scan_domain audit, but doesn't disclose further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

The description adequately explains the core functionality and its place in the domain audit. An output schema exists to document return values. Minor improvement could include explicit mention of caching behavior related to force_refresh.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds context about the TLSA lookup location, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey.

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 'Verify DANE certificate pinning for HTTPS connections' and specifies the TLSA record lookup at '_443._tcp.{domain}' (port 443). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'check_dane', which covers SMTP at port 25.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool vs. check_dane by specifying the different ports (HTTPS vs. SMTP). However, it does not address other related tools like check_ssl or check_svcb_https, leaving some ambiguity.

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