panelica_ssl_get_v1_ssl_domains_domain_id

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and required scope, but doesn't describe what 'SSL info' includes (e.g., certificate details, expiry, status), pagination, or error behavior. No contradiction.

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?

The description is extremely compact: one line of purpose, the HTTP method/path, category, required scope, and read-only flag. Every sentence earns its place, though the endpoint is redundant with 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?

For a simple read-only GET with one parameter, this is mostly complete. Missing details: what fields are returned, possible error conditions, and whether domain_id refers to a domain name or internal ID. The output schema is absent, so the description could clarify expected return data.

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%: the only parameter domain_id is described as 'Path parameter: domain_id'. The description repeats the path but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states 'Get SSL info' with the HTTP GET endpoint and 'Read-only' annotation. It identifies the resource (SSL domains) and the operation (retrieve info). It is distinguishable from sibling SSL tools like issue/renew/upload, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other SSL-related tools.

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 provides context that it is a read-only GET operation scoped to SSL domains, and the required scope ssl:read is mentioned. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or exclude other SSL operations (issue, renew, upload), so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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