check_dane_https

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behaior beyond that: every deployment reports the record as 'present but UNVERIFIED', names the root cause (probe vantage cannot observe the origin certificate, notAssessedReason probe_vantage_intercetted), and explicitly states the stale-pin limitation. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey, and it contradicts nothing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism before the caveats. The third sentence is dense, packing in the UNVERIFIED status, the probe_vantage reason, and the stale-pin warning; every sentence earns its place, though that one could be tightened. No filler anywhere.

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 tool's significant caveat (UNVERIFIED status, no stale-pin detection), the description covers purpose, mechanism, limitation, sibling routing, and audit context. An output schema exists so return-value documentation is not the description's job. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3 per rubric. The description adds only one piece of param meaning beyond the schema: that domain is used to construct the _443._tcp.{domain} DNS lookup name. That is useful but minor; format and force_refresh are already fully documented in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Verify DANE certificate pinning for HTTPS connections' and 'Looks up TLSA records at _443._tcp.{domain} (port 443)', then names exactly what gets validated (syntax, usage/selector/matching-type fields, DNSSEC backing). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_dane by protocol and port, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (check_dane) and the discriminating condition (SMTP at port 25 vs HTTPS at port 443). Also gives a clear when-not: comparison against the served certificate is withdrawn, so 'a stale pin is NOT detected here'. Stating that it is 'Part of the scan_domain audit' adds invocation context.

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