tls_cert

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

Discloses cost ($0.003/call) and wallet requirement, but no annotations are provided. Does not mention if the operation is read-only or potential side effects, though 'inspect' implies read-only.

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?

Single sentence effectively communicates purpose, cost, and output details with no superfluous words.

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 no output schema, description adequately lists output fields. Includes cost and wallet info. Could mention error handling or response format but sufficient for a simple tool.

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% (one required parameter with description 'Hostname (port 443)'). Description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond listing output fields.

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?

Clearly states it inspects TLS certificates of public hosts and lists specific certificate fields (subject, issuer, validity, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like whois or dns.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. Only states what it does, but does not mention scenarios where other tools (e.g., whois, http_check) would be more appropriate.

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