check_svcb_https

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds context about the RFC and audit role, but it does not go beyond annotations or reveal additional behaviors such as cache behavior, though schema documents force_refresh. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two short, direct sentences clearly state what the tool does and where it belongs. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary technical filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage for parameters, the description only needs to fill the purpose and context gap, and it does. It clearly identifies the subject, standard, and audit context, making the tool adequately complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented by the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for domain, format, or force_refresh; it only frames the overall purpose of the check rather than enriching parameter semantics.

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 ('Validate'), names the exact resource ('HTTPS/SVCB records (RFC 9460)'), and states its purpose ('modern transport capability advertisement'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling checks like check_dane_https or check_ssl while staying focused.

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 gives clear usage context by noting it is 'Part of the scan_domain audit,' placing it within a defined workflow. It does not explicitly call out alternatives or when not to use it, but the RFC scoping and audit context provide enough situational guidance.

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