check_dane_https

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context by explaining the DNS lookup mechanism and that it is part of a larger audit, which meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three compact sentences, each adding unique value: what the tool does, how it works, and how it differs from a sibling. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 output schema and annotations are present, the description provides the necessary behavioral context: the DNS record type, port, domain pattern, distinction from SMTP DANE, and audit context. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds context for the domain parameter by showing how it is used in the TLSA lookup pattern (_443._tcp.{domain}), but format and force_refresh are not addressed in the description. This is adequate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a clear resource ('DANE certificate pinning for HTTPS connections') and includes the exact check mechanism (TLSA records at _443._tcp.{domain}). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_dane, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool (HTTPS/port 443) and explicitly differentiates it from check_dane for SMTP/port 25. It also places it within a scan_domain audit. It does not enumerate broader exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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