check_ssl

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds vital behavioral context beyond that: certificate data comes from public CT logs and 'may differ from the one currently served', and legacy-TLS detection was withdrawn because the probe cannot observe the origin handshake. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by caveats and usage. Every sentence contributes; 'Part of the scan_domain audit' is minor but useful context. Not maximally concise, but well structured and free of filler.

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 read-only check with an output schema present, the description covers the behavior, limitations, data-source caveat, and intended use thoroughly. It leaves no critical ambiguity about what the tool can or cannot do.

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 of 3 applies. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter meanings, but the schema already documents domain, format, and force_refresh adequately. The description adds no extra param-specific nuance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the HTTPS/TLS posture of a domain' and enumerates concrete checks (HTTPS reachability, HSTS policy, HTTP-to-HTTPS redirect, certificate metadata). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly listing what it does NOT assess (origin TLS protocol support, cipher suites, legacy TLS).

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?

Provides explicit use context: 'Use to verify HTTPS/HSTS configuration and certificate issuer/expiry.' It also states limitations that imply when not to use it, such as 'Origin TLS protocol support and cipher suites are not assessed.' However, it does not name specific alternative tools for those excluded checks, so guidance is not fully routed.

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