check_ssl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds important nuance: certificate data comes from CT logs and may differ from the served certificate, and explicitly states what is not returned. This adds value beyond 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?

Description is 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, then details and exclusions. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists, description covers all needed context: what is checked, what is returned (with nuance about CT logs), and what is not. Completely describes the tool's behavior for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters with clear descriptions. Description does not add significant parameter-specific info beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('HTTPS/TLS posture of a domain'), listing specific checks (HTTPS reachability, HSTS, redirect) and certificate metadata from CT logs. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying what is NOT returned (TLS versions/ciphers), making 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?

Explicitly says 'Use to verify HTTPS/HSTS configuration and certificate issuer/expiry'. Provides context as 'Part of the scan_domain audit'. However, no alternatives are mentioned (e.g., if TLS details are needed), so it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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